Keith Brennenstuhl

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide the respondent and the Tribunal with documents, a witness list, and witness statements by a specified deadline, warning that failure to comply could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to file the required materials or communicate with the Tribunal.

As a result, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned and cancelled the scheduled hearing.

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

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 due to economic duress, lack of capacity due to visual impairment, and fraudulent misrepresentation.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had realistic alternatives to signing the release, had the capacity to understand it, and failed to establish that the respondent intentionally deceived him.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The applicant in a human rights application alleging age discrimination in employment requested to add an individual as a respondent.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant's bare allegation of harassment could not possibly lead to a finding that the proposed respondent discriminated against the applicant because of age.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex and pregnancy, claiming she was terminated after informing the respondent of her pregnancy.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because the applicant had previously filed an Employment Standards Act complaint regarding the same termination.

The Tribunal found significant overlap between the facts and issues in both proceedings and ordered the deferral of the human rights application pending the conclusion of the Ministry of Labour proceeding.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination.

The respondent Luxottica failed to file a Response despite receiving a Notice of Application and a further direction from the Tribunal warning of the consequences of failing to respond.

The Tribunal applied Rule 5.5 of its Rules of Procedure and deemed Luxottica to have accepted all allegations in the application and waived all rights to further notice or participation in the proceedings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination.

The respondent Luxottica failed to file a Response despite receiving a Notice of Application and a further direction from the Tribunal warning of the consequences of failing to respond.

The Tribunal ordered that Luxottica is deemed to have accepted all allegations in the Application and waived all rights to notice or participation in the proceedings.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming the respondent failed to perform his essential duties to secure more work hours away from the applicant.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss Application (NOID) as the narrative failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination connected to a protected ground under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant's written submissions in response to the NOID also failed to identify any such acts.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it plain and obvious that the claim fell outside its jurisdiction over general allegations of unfairness.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination in employment, claiming he was terminated and overlooked for promotion because of his age.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

Following a teleconference hearing, the Tribunal concluded that the application could not be dismissed at this preliminary stage.

The Tribunal directed that the application continue to be processed and scheduled a half-day mediation.

The respondent Kimberly Rose requested a summary hearing in an application alleging discrimination with respect to services because of disability.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the issues raised by the parties could only be resolved after hearing evidence on the merits, and that summary hearings are intended for applications where allegations may be legally insufficient to constitute a case to be answered.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to re-activate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of a related civil proceeding.

The respondents opposed the request, arguing it was out of time and deficient.

The Tribunal found that the request was filed within the 60-day time limit, as the related civil proceeding concluded when the court issued its costs decision.

The Tribunal also found the request was not deficient.

The application was re-activated, and a teleconference hearing was scheduled to determine whether the application should be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code or as an abuse of process.

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

The respondent terminated the applicant's employment on June 6, 2013, after she failed to return to work following the denial of short-term disability benefits.

The applicant sought to return to work on a gradual basis in September 2014, which the respondent refused, maintaining she had resigned in 2013.

The Tribunal found that the last incident of alleged discrimination occurred on June 6, 2013, making the application filed on March 18, 2015, untimely.

The Tribunal also found no basis to conclude the delay was incurred in good faith, as the applicant actively pursued a long-term disability claim during the delay period.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing based on ethnic origin and disability, as well as reprisal.

The last alleged incident occurred more than one year before the application was filed.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for delay.

The applicant failed to provide a good faith explanation for the delay.

The application was dismissed as untimely under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant's human rights application was initially dismissed for delay.

The Tribunal granted reconsideration to determine if the delay was in good faith, based on the applicant's claim that she received incorrect legal advice from the Human Rights Legal Support Centre.

At the preliminary hearing, the applicant did not attend, and her counsel stated no evidence from the Centre would be called.

The Tribunal adjourned the hearing and ordered the applicant to testify at a resumed hearing as to why an adverse inference should not be drawn.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal directed the parties to exchange and file documents and witness lists pursuant to Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant failed to comply with these directions by the specified deadline.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction warning the applicant that failure to comply by a new deadline could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to file the required materials or communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant alleged discrimination and harassment in housing based on his use of medical marijuana.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and determined that the application could not be dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal directed that the application continue to be processed and scheduled a one-day merits hearing.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application, alleging new evidence, conflict with established law, and a reasonable apprehension of bias by the adjudicator.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to identify any new determinative evidence, did not demonstrate how the decision conflicted with established law, and failed to establish serious grounds for a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to amend the financial compensation requested in his human rights application and to add two individuals as personal respondents.

The Tribunal denied the request to amend the remedy because the applicant provided no factual support for the change.

The Tribunal also denied the request to add the individual respondents, noting the lack of reasons or particulars provided and citing previous jurisprudence militating against adding personal respondents in these circumstances.

The applicant filed a Request for Order during Proceedings to amend his human rights application to include allegations of reprisal.

The respondents did not file submissions in response.

The Tribunal granted the unopposed request to amend the application and set a schedule for the respondents to file an amended Response and for the applicant to file an amended Reply.

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

The personal respondent requested an extension of time until August 31, 2015 to file her Response, citing personal and family responsibilities.

The Tribunal found that such a lengthy extension was not required to ensure a fair opportunity to respond.

The Tribunal directed the personal respondent to file her Response within 35 days.

In an interim decision, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario reviewed the applicant's intended witness list for an upcoming hearing.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's summary of the witnesses' intended evidence did not comply with Rule 17.2, as it failed to identify the particular events to which each witness would testify.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to file adequate witness statements by a specified date, failing which the applicant could be barred from leading the unparticularized evidence.