Michael Gottheil

The applicant in a human rights complaint against the Law Society of Upper Canada brought a motion to expand the scope of the application to investigate systemic racism, trifurcate the hearing, and introduce expert and other witness evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the requests to expand the scope and call the proposed witnesses, finding that the applicant failed to plead material facts or comply with the Tribunal's rules regarding witness statements and expert reports in a timely manner.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's unopposed request to record the proceedings.

The applicant, a kindergarten student with autism spectrum disorder, alleged discrimination by the respondent school board for failing to provide ABA/IBI therapy at school.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed two requests for orders during proceedings.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to disclose medical and therapy records to the respondent, finding them arguably relevant to the issues of the severity of the disability and appropriate accommodations.

The Tribunal also ordered the respondent to answer specific questions posed by the applicant's proposed experts, as agreed upon by the parties.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging systemic gender-based compensation discrimination against midwives spanning two decades.

The respondent brought a preliminary request to dismiss all allegations relating to events prior to November 27, 2012, arguing they fell outside the one-year limitation period in section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the detailed allegations of historical practices, policies, and attitudes formed an interconnected web that constituted a 'series of incidents' under section 34(1)(b), making the entire application timely.

The respondent brought a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to dismiss the Application to the extent it related to events outside the one-year limitation period under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued a bottom-line decision dismissing the request, finding that the Application as pleaded constituted a 'series of incidents' within the meaning of sub-section 34(1)(b) of the Code.

Full reasons were to follow.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of sex when she was not hired as a probationary firefighter.

The parties entered into Minutes of Settlement requiring the applicant to pass a work-related fitness assessment.

A dispute arose over whether the applicant met the required fitness standards, with the respondent arguing she failed to meet its specific aerobic standard, while the applicant argued she passed the independent assessment as required by the settlement.

Both parties filed applications for contravention of settlement.

The Tribunal interpreted the settlement in favour of the applicant, finding that the agreement required her to pass the independent fitness assessment chosen by the respondent, rather than the specific standards set out in a former By-Law.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application and an interim decision that refused his request to expand the scope of the application on the eve of the merits hearing.

The applicant argued the interim decision conflicted with established jurisprudence regarding amendments to applications.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the interim decision correctly applied established principles to the specific facts of the case and that the applicant was improperly attempting to reargue his position.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

In a previous interim decision, the Tribunal refused the applicant's request to add allegations and expand the scope of the application.

The applicant subsequently advised that he only wished to proceed on the allegations that had been ruled inadmissible, and did not propose to call evidence or make submissions on the admissible portions.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed.

Given the applicant's refusal to proceed on the admissible allegations, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that the respondent's Request Stop Program was discriminatory because it was only available to women.

Shortly before the hearing, the applicant conceded the program was a valid special program under the Code and sought to change his case to allege that the individual bus operator engaged in racial profiling when refusing his request for a stop.

The Tribunal refused the amendment, finding that allowing the applicant to advance a completely different case 18 months after filing the application would be highly prejudicial and unfair to the respondent.

The applicant student group filed a human rights application alleging that the respondent university discriminated against three of its members on the basis of ancestry, ethnic origin, and place of origin.

The dispute arose after the university removed and refused to approve the posting of a controversial political poster promoting 'Israeli Apartheid Week', and subsequently sent a campus-wide email regarding human rights and civil discourse.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the university's actions were motivated by genuine, good faith concerns about student safety and escalating campus tensions following an unprecedented number of hate-related incidents, rather than any discriminatory animus against Palestinians or their supporters.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of family status after the respondent municipality refused to grant her an administrative exemption to build a front yard parking space.

The applicant claimed she needed a larger vehicle to accommodate three children and that the existing rear parking space was too narrow.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that municipal officials have no statutory authority under the Planning Act to grant zoning exemptions outside the formal minor variance or by-law amendment processes, and that requiring the applicant to follow these standard procedures did not violate the Human Rights Code.

The respondent City of Toronto brought a request for early dismissal of an application alleging that its zoning by-laws discriminate against persons with mental health disabilities by imposing minimum separation distances for supportive housing.

The City argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to strike down by-laws, that the Ontario Municipal Board was the proper forum, and that the application was vague and hypothetical.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for early dismissal, finding it premature to decide these issues without a full evidentiary record, and allowed the applicant's request to amend the application.

The applicants brought a human rights application alleging that certain City of Toronto zoning by-laws discriminate against persons with disabilities by limiting the availability of supportive housing.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission filed a Notice of Intervention with the applicants' consent under section 37(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The City objected, arguing the Tribunal should first determine its preliminary jurisdictional challenges.

The Tribunal dismissed the City's objection, holding that under section 37(2), the Commission is entitled to intervene as of right as a full party and does not merely request permission.

The complainant requested the production of an email between the respondent's in-house legal counsel's assistant and the respondent's counsel.

The Tribunal had previously ruled the document was protected by solicitor-client privilege.

The request was made after both parties had closed their cases and without providing reasons for reconsideration or reopening the case.

The Tribunal denied the request for production.

The respondents requested the dismissal of the human rights application due to the applicant's consistent failure to comply with the Tribunal's Rules and directions.

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

Given the applicant's continued non-compliance and failure to attend, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking to withdraw from a human rights complaint alleging reprisal.

Neither the complainant nor the respondent opposed the request.

The Tribunal granted the Commission leave to withdraw and ordered it removed from the style of cause.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability (HIV) in the provision of education services by Ryerson University.

The applicant requested anonymization, an expedited proceeding, and an interim remedy.

The Tribunal granted the request for anonymization on consent, noting the stigma associated with HIV.

The Tribunal scheduled an oral hearing to determine the remaining requests and directed the applicant to file a reply to the respondents' factual assertions.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that the respondent physician terminated their relationship due to disability and sexual orientation.

The applicant also filed a Request to Expedite, arguing that he needed medication repeats within 30 days and would face severe harm if unable to find a prescribing physician.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding the alleged harm speculative as the applicant could seek treatment at walk-in clinics or emergency rooms.

Furthermore, the Tribunal noted it lacked the remedial power to order a physician to prescribe medication.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision dismissing his human rights application.

He alleged clerical errors, re-argued his case, and expressed frustration with the Tribunal's limited jurisdiction.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that clerical errors do not warrant reconsideration, a reconsideration is not an opportunity to re-argue a case, and the Tribunal cannot expand its statutory jurisdiction.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in goods, services and facilities on the ground of sex.

The Tribunal previously directed the applicant to provide a mailing address for the respondents to confirm proper notice.

The applicant failed to respond.

The Tribunal ordered that if the applicant does not provide the information within 10 days, the application will be dismissed as abandoned.

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

He argued that there were new facts, the decision conflicted with established case law, and other factors outweighed the public interest in finality.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was attempting to re-argue his case and that his concerns about the respondents' failure to call certain witnesses or alleged comments by opposing counsel did not meet the criteria for reconsideration.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.