Kevin G. Cleghorn

The applicant alleged age discrimination and reprisal after being denied admission to a part-time business law program at the respondent university.

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

The Tribunal found no evidence linking the denial of admission to the applicant's age, nor any evidence of reprisal, as the applicant's threat of legal action occurred after the admission decision.

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

The applicant, a retired member of the respondent who self-identifies as an aboriginal person, alleged discrimination on the basis of race, ancestry, and ethnic origin.

He claimed the respondent discriminated against him by complying with a Canada Customs and Revenue Agency garnishment order and by refusing to reinstate his lapsed benefits coverage.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and found no reasonable prospect of success, as the applicant provided no evidence linking the respondent's actions to a prohibited ground under the Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal after being issued a trespass notice barring him from a courthouse.

The application was filed more than three years after the incident and nearly two years after the applicant withdrew a previous, identical application.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed for delay.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish a good faith reason for the delay under section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code, as the new information he claimed to have discovered could have been obtained during the original proceedings.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process and for being out of time.

The applicants filed an Application for Contravention of Settlement, alleging the respondents breached a prior settlement agreement when a security guard temporarily prohibited children from using a condominium billiard room.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and found that the security guard's actions were based on a temporary mistaken belief that was quickly corrected when the applicants provided proof of the rule change.

The Tribunal concluded that the alleged breach was de minimis and dismissed the application as having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant filed an application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code alleging discrimination in employment based on disability.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the parties to exchange documents and witness statements, warning that failure to comply could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond to the direction.

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

The applicant filed an Application for Contravention of Settlement alleging the respondents failed to pay $20,000 as agreed in Minutes of Settlement.

The respondents did not participate in the proceedings.

The Tribunal found the corporate respondent breached the settlement by failing to pay the funds.

The Tribunal declined to order the individual respondent to pay, as the settlement only required her to maintain confidentiality.

The Tribunal also noted it lacks jurisdiction to award legal costs, but awarded $1,000 in damages for the breach of settlement against the corporate respondent, along with the $20,000 settlement amount and interest.

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

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

The applicant failed to attend the hearing or provide an explanation for her absence.

As a result, the Tribunal dismissed the application, deeming it to have been abandoned.