Keith Brennenstuhl

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination after not being interviewed for two positions.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed as an abuse of process because the parties had previously signed a Memorandum of Settlement containing a full and final release regarding the applicant's employment.

The Tribunal found that the release barred any claims related to the applicant's employment up to his resignation date, which included the job competitions in question.

The applicant failed to establish duress in signing the settlement.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The applicant, a former stock clerk at the respondent's grocery store, alleged discrimination and reprisal based on disability, sex, gender identity, gender expression, and age.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal found that the applicant provided only bald allegations without any evidence linking his workplace treatment to the enumerated Code grounds.

The application was dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed at a preliminary hearing on the basis that the applicant had previously signed Minutes of Settlement and a Final Release and Indemnity regarding her termination.

The applicant argued she signed under duress and did not understand the documents.

The Tribunal found no evidence of duress or lack of understanding, noting she received a severance package exceeding statutory minimums and had union representation.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the employer as an abuse of process, and dismissed the application against the union and its counsel as having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant filed an application alleging that the respondent contravened Minutes of Settlement from a previous human rights application.

The settlement required the applicant to undergo a physiotherapist assessment to determine if she could perform the essential duties of her position, and if not, she would resign in exchange for general damages.

The physiotherapist concluded she could not perform the duties, but the applicant refused to resign, claiming the assessment was inaccurate.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the respondent had not breached the settlement and that the applicant was simply dissatisfied with the outcome of the agreed-upon assessment process.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to amend his human rights application to add new allegations of discrimination based on ethnic origin and race, to add two individual respondents, and for particulars.

The Tribunal denied the request to amend, finding the proposed allegations too vague and unrelated to the original application.

The request to add personal respondents was denied as there was no compelling juridical reason and they had not been served.

The request for particulars was deemed premature.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a prior Tribunal decision that dismissed his application following a summary hearing.

The applicant argued there were new facts and other factors outweighing the finality of the decision.

The Tribunal found that the applicant merely reiterated previous arguments and provided details that were available at the time of the summary hearing.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed as the applicant failed to meet the criteria under Rule 26.

The respondent employer requested the dismissal of the human rights application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the applicant's prior Ministry of Labour complaint regarding termination pay appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the Employment Standards Officer only determined the applicant's entitlement to termination pay under the Employment Standards Act, 2000, and did not address the Code-related claims of discrimination based on disability and age.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend her human rights application to add new grounds of discrimination, reprisal, a new narrative, and additional remedies.

The respondents did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, noting the matter was in its early stages and the applicant was previously unrepresented, but denied the request to add remedies against individuals who were not named as parties to the application.

The respondents requested a summary hearing, which the applicant opposed.

The Tribunal denied the request for a summary hearing without reasons, pursuant to Rule 19A.5.

The matter was directed to mediation as agreed by the parties.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking leave to amend his human rights application to increase his claim for general damages from $1,200 to $1,500.

The respondents did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal applied the factors from Aubin v. Sudbury Sexual Assault Crisis Centre and granted the amendment, noting the lack of prejudice to the respondents given the hearing date was over two months away.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of related WSIB and WSIAT proceedings.

The applicant argued that the WSIAT appeal would not be heard for another year, resulting in a delay of over three and a half years since the appealed decision.

The Tribunal found that the WSIB/WSIAT proceedings had become unduly prolonged and that deferral was no longer the most fair, just, and expeditious way to process the application.

The request to reactivate the application was granted.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking the production of documents related to a hiring competition, including interview notes, test questions, and reference checks of another candidate.

The Tribunal declined to order production, noting that the respondent had already agreed to provide typed copies of handwritten notes and other relevant materials.

The requested test questions were found not arguably relevant because the applicant had been waived through those stages of the competition.

The Tribunal also noted it cannot order the production of non-existent documents.

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

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation session and did not respond to subsequent correspondence from the Tribunal warning that failure to respond could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant brought a human rights application against his employer.

The applicant's union sought and was granted intervenor status.

The applicant requested to preclude the union from intervening, under the mistaken impression that the union sought to represent him.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the union has an interest in the application as the bargaining agent for the applicant, and that absent exceptional circumstances, a bargaining agent will be granted intervention status.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, which was deferred pending the conclusion of ongoing criminal proceedings.

The Tribunal subsequently sent multiple letters requesting an update on the status of the criminal proceedings, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal.

The applicant failed to respond to any of the letters.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging wrongful termination due to a work-related illness and workplace complaints.

The applicant's union had previously filed a grievance on similar grounds, which was settled for a lump sum payment equal to 28 weeks of pay.

Although the applicant did not sign the Minutes of Settlement, he cashed the settlement cheque.

The Tribunal held that cashing the cheque constituted implicit acceptance of the settlement.

The application was dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code as its substance had been appropriately dealt with in the grievance proceeding.

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 by the specified deadline.

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

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed their human rights application as an abuse of process.

The applicant argued the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence and involved a matter of general or public importance.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding the applicant failed to identify any conflicting Tribunal decisions or demonstrate how the private claim involved a matter of public importance.

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

The Tribunal was unable to deliver the Notice of Application to the respondent because the address provided was incorrect.

Despite multiple written requests from the Tribunal to provide a current and accurate address for the respondent, the applicant failed to respond.

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

The respondent in a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability requested the removal of a personal respondent and the summary dismissal of the application.

The Tribunal granted the request to remove the personal respondent, finding that her actions were taken in the course of her employment and there was no compelling reason to keep her as a party.

The Tribunal denied the request for a summary hearing, noting that the factual disputes between the parties required a full hearing on the merits.