Keith Brennenstuhl

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.

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

The applicant failed to provide available dates to reschedule mediation and did not respond to the Tribunal's correspondence warning of abandonment.

The Application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

The applicant alleged discrimination with respect to services because of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code.

She claimed that during visits to the respondent's emergency room for pain related to a rotated spine, a physician wrote in her chart that she was a 'drug seeker' and questioned her about drug use.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and found that the applicant failed to point to any evidence linking the alleged mistreatment to her disability.

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

The applicant, a university professor, alleged discrimination based on ancestry and reprisal by the respondent university.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to point to any evidence linking the alleged unfair treatment to his ancestry, and failed to identify any reprisal for asserting his rights under the Code.

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

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code but failed to comply with the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure regarding the exchange of documents and witness lists.

Following a Case Assessment Direction that warned of potential dismissal, the applicant again failed to file the required materials or communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant, an inmate, alleged that Legal Aid Ontario discriminated against him and engaged in reprisal by refusing to allow him to change counsel, refusing to issue a new certificate, and refusing to properly reassess his claim.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

The applicant withdrew his creed claim and proceeded only on reprisal.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it plain and obvious that it lacked jurisdiction because the applicant failed to explain how the respondent's actions were related to claiming or enforcing a right under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed an application alleging the respondents contravened a settlement agreement by failing to implement non-monetary public interest remedies, including drafting a service animal policy and completing human rights training.

The respondents failed to file a response and were deemed to have accepted the allegations.

The Tribunal found a breach of the settlement and ordered the respondents to comply with the outstanding terms.

The Tribunal also awarded the applicant $1,000 in compensation for the distress caused by the respondents' failure to implement the remedies, which left her fearful of returning to the respondents' building.

The corporate respondent, Balan International, requested the removal of two personal respondents from a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability and marital status.

The applicant and the other corporate respondent did not provide submissions.

Applying the principles from Sigrist and Carson, the Tribunal found no compelling reason to keep the individuals as parties, as there was no issue regarding the corporate respondent's ability to respond to or remedy the alleged Code infringement.

The request to remove the personal respondents was granted.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant argued that the adjudicator failed to consider his extensive submissions before dismissing the application.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was essentially attempting to appeal the decision and presented no new facts or other grounds to justify a reconsideration.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The respondents requested the removal of the personal respondent from an application alleging employment discrimination based on place of origin and citizenship.

The respondents argued the personal respondent was acting in the course of his employment with the corporate respondent.

The Tribunal denied the request, applying the Sigrist and Carson factors.

The Tribunal found that the personal respondent's alleged individual conduct was at the core of the application and could result in personal remedies, making his removal unfair at this stage.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the human rights application on its own initiative, pending the resolution of the applicant's claim under the Employment Standards Act (ESA).

The applicant opposed the deferral, arguing the cases were unrelated.

The Tribunal found that the ESA proceeding and the human rights application both related primarily to the applicant's dismissal and involved overlapping facts and issues.

The application was deferred pending the outcome of the ESA proceeding.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination, while concurrently pursuing two union grievances based on the same facts.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the application pending the outcome of the grievance process.

Noting the Supreme Court of Canada's affirmation that grievance arbitrators have the authority to enforce human rights statutes, the Tribunal applied its normal approach of deferring to concurrent proceedings where there is substantial overlap in facts and issues.

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

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the applicant's allegations of age discrimination in employment.

The applicant requested to add an individual as a personal respondent.

The Tribunal denied the summary hearing request, finding that the issues required a hearing on the merits to resolve.

The Tribunal also denied the applicant's request to add the personal respondent, noting that the individual had not been served with the request and it would be unfair to add him at this late stage.

The applicant failed to file a will-say statement as directed by the Tribunal in an Interim Decision and a subsequent Case Assessment Direction.

The Tribunal had warned that failure to comply could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

On the deadline day, the applicant's counsel requested an extension, noting the applicant had failed to attend a scheduled meeting or communicate with him.

The Tribunal denied the extension request, finding the applicant's conduct consistent with abandonment, and dismissed the application.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding alleging discrimination in employment requested orders requiring the respondents to produce various documents, including a franchise agreement, video footage, store operating manuals, and workplace safety records.

The Tribunal ordered the production of the franchise agreement with confidential financial and ownership terms redacted.

The remaining requests were denied because the documents were either not arguably relevant to the issues in dispute or did not exist.

The applicant alleged discrimination with respect to employment contrary to the Human Rights Code.

After hearing the applicant's evidence, the Tribunal requested submissions on whether the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal concluded that the issues raised could only be resolved after hearing the respondent's evidence, and ordered the hearing to continue.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The respondent sought early dismissal of the application because the applicant had signed a full and final release in exchange for a severance package.

The applicant argued the release should be set aside because he was induced to sign it by the respondent's fraudulent misrepresentation that his termination was due to restructuring.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet the test for fraudulent misrepresentation, specifically the requirement to repudiate the agreement and return the settlement funds within a reasonable time.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The applicant's father, acting as litigation guardian, filed a human rights application alleging the respondent school board failed to accommodate his daughter's learning disability.

The respondent sought to dismiss the application, arguing the issues were already addressed in a family court custody proceeding.

The Tribunal found that the father had previously consented to a family court order establishing a process to determine the applicant's educational supports and school placement.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as an abuse of process, concluding it was an impermissible collateral attack on the family court order.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex, claiming he was unfairly accused by his employer of having sex with a colleague and sexually harassing a former client.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss Application on the basis that the allegations failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Human Rights Code.

Finding that the applicant's claims related to general unfairness, libel, and defamation rather than Code-protected discrimination, the Tribunal dismissed the application as it was plain and obvious that it fell outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of creed, claiming that Alcoholics Anonymous refused to list his agnostic group.

The respondent A.A. World Services, Inc. requested that the application be dismissed against it for lack of jurisdiction and failure to allege discrimination.

The applicant requested to add the General Services Board of Alcoholics Anonymous Inc. and the Greater Toronto Intergroup as respondents.

The Tribunal found that the respondents had a real and substantial connection to Ontario and provided services in the province.

The Tribunal added the requested respondents, refused to remove A.A. World Services, Inc., and ordered a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success regarding whether a religion-based charitable organization must accommodate differing creeds.