Mark Handelman

The applicant filed an application under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

Despite receiving notice of the hearing, neither the applicant nor her licensed representative appeared.

In the absence of any evidence or explanation for the failure to attend, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The applicant alleged the respondent breached Minutes of Settlement by participating in her WSIB appeal.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's consultant filing a Confirmation of Appeal constituted a breach.

However, because the respondent promptly withdrew from the appeal upon learning of the error and apologized, and the applicant suffered no significant harm, the Tribunal declined to order a remedy and dismissed the application.

The applicant alleged discrimination with respect to services because of disability after the respondent denied coverage for Dronedarone, the only drug she could take for atrial fibrillation.

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

The Tribunal found that the respondent's Ontario Drug Benefit Program did not fund Dronedarone for anyone in Ontario, based on an expert committee's recommendation.

Because the applicant was not treated differently from others on the basis of a Code-related ground, the Tribunal concluded there was no reasonable prospect of success and dismissed the application.

The applicant, who has a degenerative disease limiting his mobility, filed a human rights application alleging the respondents failed to accommodate his disability at their campground.

The applicant rented a trailer site and required a mobility scooter, but could not access the campground store, public telephone, garbage bins, or community washrooms.

The Tribunal found that the respondents breached the Human Rights Code by failing to make the public facilities accessible to the point of undue hardship.

The Tribunal awarded the applicant $15,225 in monetary compensation for loss of enjoyment and injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, plus pre-judgment interest.

The Tribunal also ordered the corporate respondent to provide accessible washrooms and ensure the store ramp met building code requirements.

The applicant, a restaurant co-manager, alleged that her employment was terminated because of her disability (liver disease).

The respondents claimed she was terminated for cause due to performance issues.

The Tribunal found that the timing of the termination closely coincided with the onset of her medical condition and her need for time off work.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's disability was a factor in the decision to terminate her employment, violating the Human Rights Code.

The applicant was awarded $5,500 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, plus compensation for lost disability benefits for six months.

The applicant, a bartender at a casino, alleged that his employment was terminated based on his ethnic origin and race.

The corporate respondent maintained that the termination was for cause.

The applicant was subject to a 'last chance' agreement following a previous suspension for threatening a supervisor.

Surveillance footage captured the applicant breaching company policies, including taking company property and eating on the job.

The Tribunal found no evidence of discrimination and concluded that the termination was for cause due to the policy breaches.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application against the respondents.

The applicant argued that he was unfairly prevented from introducing a medical note, making an opening statement, and questioning witnesses without interruption.

The Tribunal found that the medical note would not have changed the outcome, and that the adjudicator's conduct during the hearing was appropriate and within the Tribunal's rules for transitional applications.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant, a unionized worker, suffered a chemical burn at work resulting in a temporary rash.

He alleged that his subsequent layoff was a reprisal for seeking accommodation, that he was denied an apprenticeship due to his disability, that the employer failed to accommodate him by assigning shop work instead of office work, and that he was harassed by his supervisor and the company president.

The Tribunal dismissed the reprisal, apprenticeship, and accommodation claims, finding the layoff was due to a work shortage and the accommodation was appropriate.

However, the Tribunal found that two teasing comments made by a supervisor about the applicant's skin condition constituted harassment under the Code.

Given the trivial nature of the comments and lack of lasting impact, the Tribunal awarded $100 in damages.

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled Case Resolution Conference.

The Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant received timely and proper notice of the conference.

In the absence of the applicant or any explanation for their non-attendance, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The applicant filed human rights applications against his former employer and his union, alleging failure to accommodate his disability and discrimination in the union's settlement of his grievance.

The union had previously settled the applicant's termination grievance without his consent, and the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) had dismissed his subsequent duty of fair representation complaint.

The Tribunal dismissed both applications under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, finding that the substance of the applications had already been appropriately dealt with through the grievance process and the OLRB proceeding.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application on the basis that his disabilities were reasonably accommodated.

The applicant argued there were new facts or evidence and mistakes of fact in the original decision.

The Tribunal found that the alleged new evidence was previously denied production because it was irrelevant, and the alleged mistakes of fact were either immaterial or simply findings of fact with which the applicant disagreed.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant alleged that he was subjected to discriminatory treatment based on his age and place of origin (Egypt) while receiving treatment in the emergency department of the respondent hospital.

He claimed that the hospital staff's actions, including the manner in which he was addressed, the drawing of blood, and the administration of injections, were part of a scheme to harass him.

The Tribunal found no evidence to support the applicant's inferences of discrimination.

The respondents provided credible, non-discriminatory explanations for their actions, which were accepted as reasonable medical practices.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a head custodian, alleged that his employer failed to properly accommodate his physical injuries and that he was subjected to harassment and reprisals based on his disability and age.

The Tribunal found that the employer had reasonably accommodated the applicant's limitations by modifying his duties, purchasing specialized equipment, and adjusting his schedule.

The Tribunal held that the applicant was not entitled to dictate his preferred accommodation and that the employer's proposals were reasonable.

The allegations of harassment and unsafe work conditions were also dismissed as unsubstantiated.