Keith Brennenstuhl

The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination based on marital and family status.

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

After the applicant's written submissions failed to address the jurisdictional issue, the Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it plain and obvious that the allegations fell outside its jurisdiction under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application for being filed outside the limitation period.

The applicant argued the decision conflicted with established case law.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding the applicant was merely attempting to re-argue his case and failed to establish any of the threshold criteria under Rule 26 for reconsideration.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the hearing to allow time for an allergy specialist appointment to confirm her alleged shellfish allergy, which is central to her claim of discrimination on the basis of disability.

The respondent opposed the request.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that medical confirmation of the allergy would narrow the issues and expedite the matter without prejudicing the respondent.

The applicant in a human rights complaint sought to amend his application to add two personal respondents and increase the monetary remedy sought.

The respondent opposed the amendments and brought its own request to allow a witness to testify by teleconference.

The Tribunal denied the request to add personal respondents, finding no compelling reason to do so when the corporate respondent could satisfy any remedy.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend the monetary remedy, noting the absence of prejudice.

The Tribunal also granted the respondent's unopposed request for its witness to testify by teleconference from Australia due to financial hardship.

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

The application was filed almost four years after the termination.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed for delay under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the last incident of alleged discrimination occurred on the date of termination, and that the applicant's reliance on an ongoing union grievance did not constitute a good faith reason for the delay.

The application was dismissed as untimely.

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

A summary hearing was scheduled to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to attend the teleconference hearing despite receiving notice.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a request for reconsideration of a decision that dismissed her human rights application as abandoned after she failed to attend a summary hearing.

The request was filed more than two months after the 30-day deadline.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the delay was not incurred in good faith and that the applicant had received proper notice of the summary hearing.

The applicant filed an Application for Contravention of Settlement, alleging the respondent failed to pay $500.00 as agreed in a settlement dated June 20, 2014.

The respondent's owner testified that a cheque was issued but acknowledged it was never cashed and did not dispute that the applicant never received it.

The Tribunal found the respondent breached the settlement and ordered the respondent to immediately pay the $500.00 owing.

The applicant filed a human rights application against his former employer and union almost 18 months after the last alleged incident of discrimination.

The respondents sought to dismiss the application for delay.

The applicant argued the delay was incurred in good faith because he was ignorant of the limitation period, was pursuing a duty of fair representation complaint at the OLRB, and was acting on his lawyer's strategic advice.

The Tribunal found the applicant was aware of the limitation period and made an informed choice to pursue his claims at the OLRB instead of filing a timely human rights application.

The Tribunal held that relying on a lawyer's litigation strategy to pursue rights in another forum does not constitute a good faith reason for delay under section 34(2) of the Code.

The application was dismissed.

At the outset of the hearing, the applicant objected to the respondent being represented by an unlicensed individual.

The representative, a former employee of the respondent now acting as a consultant, argued he fell under the Law Society Act exemption for employees of a single corporation.

The Tribunal found the exemption did not apply to his current consultant arrangement and ruled he could not represent the respondent.

The Tribunal subsequently granted the respondent's request for an adjournment to retain legal counsel, finding no concrete prejudice to the applicant.

The applicant sought to further defer her human rights application pending the outcome of a judicial review of an arbitrator's award that upheld her denial of tenure and termination.

The respondent argued the Tribunal should no longer defer and should determine whether the application should be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the grievance and arbitration process was still ongoing due to the judicial review application and ordered the application deferred pending its completion.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the hearing because a key witness would be out of province.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that witness unavailability due to travel is not an extraordinary circumstance warranting an adjournment.

The applicant requested that his doctor be permitted to testify by teleconference.

The Tribunal granted this request, noting that the doctor's credibility was not a significant issue and the respondent did not object.

The applicant requested an order during proceedings to amend her human rights application to include additional facts regarding her termination of employment and interactions with Service Canada.

The respondents did not oppose the request but did not concede relevance.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend the application, noting the lack of opposition and considering the nature, reasons, timing, and prejudice factors.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, which was previously deferred pending Employment Standards Act proceedings.

The Tribunal subsequently wrote to the applicant requesting confirmation of whether he wished to proceed, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's inquiry.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application which was deferred pending ongoing grievance proceedings.

The Tribunal later requested an update on the grievance proceedings, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's request.

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

The applicant alleged that the respondent police service discriminated against him based on his sex by refusing to lay domestic assault charges against his ex-girlfriend.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant's claim was based on mere speculation and lacked any evidentiary basis linking the police's decision to his gender.

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

A preliminary hearing was scheduled to determine whether the application should be dismissed on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release.

At the commencement of the hearing, it became evident that the respondent had not received the applicant's further written submissions, which argued the release should be set aside due to misrepresentation and the applicant's disabilities.

To ensure procedural fairness, the Tribunal adjourned the preliminary hearing to provide the respondent an opportunity to prepare a response.

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

The Tribunal scheduled a summary hearing by teleconference to determine whether the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing without explanation.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Hearing and a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to provide arguably relevant documents, a witness list, and witness statements by specified deadlines.

The applicant failed to comply with these directions and did not communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned and cancelled the scheduled hearing dates.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intention to Dismiss (NOID) due to a potential issue with delay in filing.

After reviewing the applicant's written submissions, the Tribunal concluded it was not plain and obvious that the application fell outside its jurisdiction.

The Tribunal directed that the application be processed and served on the respondents.