Keith Brennenstuhl

The respondent requested an order prohibiting the union from intervening in the applicant's human rights application alleging discrimination in employment.

The Tribunal found no exceptional circumstances to deny the union's intervention, noting that a union generally has an interest in an application brought by an employee in its bargaining unit.

The request to prohibit intervention was dismissed, with the scope of intervention left to the hearing adjudicator.

The applicant filed a human rights application while concurrently pursuing a union grievance based on the same facts and human rights issues.

The respondent supported deferring the application, while the applicant opposed it.

The Tribunal, noting its normal approach to defer to concurrent legal proceedings capable of addressing human rights issues, ordered the application deferred pending the completion of the grievance process.

The applicant in a human rights application alleging employment discrimination requested to add the University of Toronto and Starbucks Coffee Canada Inc. as respondents.

Three personal respondents requested to be removed as parties.

The Tribunal granted the request to remove the personal respondents, finding no allegations of discrimination against them.

The Tribunal denied the request to add the corporate respondents, finding no basis upon which they could be found to have violated the applicant's rights under the Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on race, colour, place of origin, ethnic origin, age, and reprisal.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the application pending the completion of an ongoing union grievance proceeding dealing with the same facts and issues.

The Tribunal found that deferral was appropriate to avoid concurrent proceedings and the possibility of inconsistent decisions.

The application was deferred pending the completion of the grievance process.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment based on disability.

The respondents requested access to the applicant's medical records held by the hospital's Corporate Health and Safety Services Department and an extension of time to file their Response.

The applicant sought to review and redact the records prior to disclosure.

The Tribunal ordered the disclosure of the medical records without prior redaction by the applicant, noting their relevance to the issues of disability and accommodation, and granted the respondents a three-week extension to file their Response.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race and ethnic origin, as well as reprisal.

The applicant had also filed a claim under the Employment Standards Act (ESA) based on the same facts, seeking unpaid wages and damages for wrongful dismissal.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer.

Finding that the subject matter of the two proceedings was substantially similar and that proceeding concurrently could result in inconsistent findings, the Tribunal exercised its discretion to defer the human rights application pending the outcome of the ESA claim.

The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination based on disability.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application failed to identify specific acts of discrimination connected to a protected ground.

In her written submissions, the applicant claimed her disability was 'being smarter than most people,' which the Tribunal found is not a protected ground under the Code.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it plain and obvious that the claim fell outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability, challenging a decision made by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that it lacked jurisdiction to review decisions of other statutory bodies due to adjudicative immunity.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that it cannot re-evaluate the substantive or procedural correctness of a decision made under another statutory scheme.

The Tribunal reconsidered on its own motion a previous decision that dismissed the application as abandoned.

The Tribunal discovered that the parties had in fact filed a completed Form 25 (Settlement), which was not placed on the file due to an administrative error.

The previous decision was revoked, and the Registrar was directed to issue a Confirmation of Settlement letter and close the file.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and constructive dismissal.

He subsequently commenced a civil action in the Superior Court of Justice relying on the same facts and seeking damages for breaches of the Human Rights Code.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed pursuant to s. 34(11) of the Code.

The Tribunal found that the applicant raised the same facts and issues in his civil action and sought remedies for them, triggering s. 34(11).

The application was dismissed as being outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to identify any of the required grounds for reconsideration under Rule 26.5 and instead sought to reargue matters from the original hearing.

The Tribunal found no compelling or extraordinary circumstances to justify reopening the matter and dismissed the request for reconsideration.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a previous decision that dismissed his human rights application as an abuse of process due to a signed full and final release.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to identify any new facts, evidence, or other factors that would outweigh the public interest in the finality of the decision.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to add a personal respondent, add the ground of reprisal, and amend her remedial request to $50,000 for general damages and lost wages.

The respondents did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal applied the Smyth and Persaud factors and found it appropriate to add the personal respondent, as he allegedly made a discriminatory comment and could be found to have violated the Code.

The Tribunal also granted the requests to add the ground of reprisal and amend the remedy, noting no prejudice to the respondents.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in services based on race, colour, ancestry, and ethnic origin, arising from the repeated use of a racial slur in two newspaper columns published by the respondents.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the application for lack of jurisdiction.

Following written submissions, the Tribunal dismissed the application, holding that the content of a newspaper is not a 'service' within the meaning of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) on the basis that the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the NOID and a subsequent warning letter.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal was informed that the parties had settled the matter but had not filed a Form 25.

The Tribunal directed the parties to file the form or confirm their intention to proceed to a hearing, warning that failure to do so might result in the application being deemed abandoned.

Neither party responded.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant, who is HIV positive, alleged discrimination with respect to services because of disability after the respondent out-patient clinic directed him to have a screening colonoscopy at a hospital rather than at the clinic.

The clinic's policy directed patients with certain medical histories, including HIV, to a hospital endoscopy unit due to the clinic's low-risk capacity.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant's preference for a clinic setting over a hospital was not a need related to his disability, and that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to evaluate the medical appropriateness of a physician's clinical risk assessment absent arbitrariness.

The applicant requested to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of a civil proceeding in Small Claims Court.

The civil proceeding was dismissed on consent.

The Tribunal granted the request and reactivated the application.

The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination based on sexual solicitation or advances and sexual orientation.

The respondent requested a summary hearing.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that under Rule 19A.5 of its Rules of Procedure, reasons are not required when declining to hold a summary hearing.

The adjudicator noted that the hearing adjudicator retains discretion to reconsider whether a full hearing is necessary after hearing some or all of the applicant's evidence.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application.

The applicant argued there were new facts or evidence and that the case was of public importance due to alleged fabricated evidence by the respondent and intervenor.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to identify any determinative new evidence and that his allegations were bald assertions.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed as an attempt to re-argue the merits of the application.