Michael Gottheil

The applicant requested that the adjudicator recuse himself, alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias because the adjudicator identified threshold legal issues and requested submissions before the respondents had filed their response.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that modern administrative procedure and the Human Rights Code authorize active case management, and that identifying relevant issues does not indicate pre-determination or favouritism.

The applicant filed multiple applications alleging discrimination in the provision of services, claiming he was subjected to homophobic slurs while attending minor league hockey games as a spectator.

The respondents requested that the applications be deferred pending the determination of preliminary jurisdictional issues in four transitional applications filed by the applicant under the old Code.

The Tribunal granted the request and deferred the applications, declining to rule on the respondents' claims of abuse of process and vexatious litigation at this stage.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be dismissed for abuse of process after the applicant failed to file a Statement of Delivery regarding document production, as previously directed by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision setting a schedule for written submissions on the respondent's request and scheduling a teleconference hearing.

The Tribunal warned that if the applicant failed to provide submissions and file the Statement of Delivery, the application would be dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal.

The respondents brought a motion to dismiss the application as untimely, and the applicant brought a motion to disqualify the respondents' counsel due to an alleged solicitor-client conflict.

The Tribunal dismissed the request to disqualify counsel, finding no evidence that relevant confidential information was received.

The Tribunal also dismissed the application as untimely, finding that the 19-month delay was not incurred in good faith and that the alleged reprisal was not a genuine attempt to enforce rights under the Code.

The complainant, a university professor, filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of creed and reprisal regarding the university's policy of cancelling classes on Jewish high holidays.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed several preliminary motions.

The Tribunal removed the individual respondents from the proceeding, as the university assumed full responsibility for their actions.

The Tribunal declined to add the current university president as a respondent.

The Tribunal also refused to strike allegations relating to events previously litigated in a grievance arbitration, finding that the substance of the reprisal claim was not before the arbitrator, though it noted the complainant could not relitigate the arbitrator's factual findings.

Finally, the Tribunal struck allegations regarding unrelated Superior Court litigation.

The applicant, a high school student, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in relation to disciplinary action that resulted in a 20-day suspension and delayed his return to school.

He brought a request to expedite the application, arguing that his lower grades would prevent his admission to university in the fall.

The Tribunal dismissed the request to expedite, finding that the applicant had not provided evidence that the university would deny him admission based on his current marks or summer school upgrades, and therefore failed to demonstrate that expedition was necessary to ensure a fair adjudication or prevent the requested remedy from becoming moot.

The applicant filed an Application alleging sex discrimination after being required to purchase an additional ticket for her breastfeeding infant to attend a music festival.

She also filed a Request to Expedite because the event was imminent.

Neither party attended the scheduled teleconference.

The Tribunal contacted the applicant, who confirmed she had attended the event by purchasing the extra ticket and was now seeking compensation.

Finding no remaining urgency, the Tribunal dismissed the Request to Expedite and directed the applicant to provide a mailing address for the respondents.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination and reprisal against her employer, the Centre for Spanish Speaking Peoples, and her union, OPSEU.

In an interim decision, the Tribunal considered whether the application disclosed a prima facie case and whether it should be deferred pending an OLRB complaint.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against OPSEU, finding no allegations that the union's actions were based on discriminatory factors.

The Tribunal allowed the age discrimination claim against the employer to proceed, as the applicant alleged age-related comments and denial of training, but dismissed the reprisal claim.

The request to defer the application was denied.

The applicant filed a reprisal application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, alleging he suffered reprisal when the respondents in a separate application sought to have him removed as a representative.

The Tribunal previously directed written submissions on whether section 8 protects a party's representative and whether privilege attaches to a formal request for removal.

Finding these to be significant threshold issues, the Tribunal scheduled a half-day oral hearing to hear submissions before making a determination, pursuant to section 43(2)1 of the Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application, and the respondent failed to file a Response over a seven-month period, resulting in a default finding.

The respondent sought to participate, citing the extenuating personal circumstances of its former paralegal and subsequent confusion.

The Tribunal found the respondent's explanation lacking in particulars and ordered the respondent to provide sworn statements detailing the reasons for its non-compliance, to be followed by an in-person hearing for cross-examination.

The applicant, an international student, alleged that a student services officer at the respondent College made a discriminatory comment to him based on his race and place of origin.

He also alleged that the College failed to properly investigate his subsequent complaint.

Following a hearing, the Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the alleged comment was made, noting corroborating evidence supporting the employee's denial and inconsistencies in the applicant's claims regarding the incident's impact.

The Tribunal also found that the College's internal investigation was comprehensive, serious, and timely.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the grounds of race, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, disability, and age when the respondents failed to cancel his change of name application.

The Tribunal found that the failure to cancel the application was due to the applicant's cancellation request being misplaced in the mail, not due to any discriminatory reason.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment, including failure to hire and sexual harassment.

The corporate respondent requested the removal of its District Manager as a personal respondent.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the manager's actions were within the normal course of employment and the corporate respondent accepted liability for his actions.

The Tribunal also issued procedural directions requiring the applicant to provide particulars for certain allegations and setting the order of proceedings for the upcoming hearing.

The respondents failed to file a Response to a human rights application and were deemed to have accepted the allegations.

They subsequently retained counsel and requested permission to participate, explaining that the failure was due to the serious illness and subsequent death of the corporate respondent's principal operating officer.

The applicant did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal accepted the explanation, reversed its previous order, and permitted the respondents to file their Response and participate in the proceedings.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing because her file had been reassigned to new clinic counsel who was unavailable on the hearing date.

The Tribunal denied the request, applying its established principle that retaining new counsel after a hearing is scheduled does not justify an adjournment absent exceptional circumstances.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment.

After the respondent failed to file a Response, the Tribunal deemed the respondent to have accepted the allegations and waived its right to participate.

The respondent subsequently requested to participate, explaining that its former representative had experienced a family crisis and failed to file the Response.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the parties to file written submissions on whether the respondent should be permitted to participate, which would be addressed at an upcoming teleconference.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services (OCCPS) after it dismissed his complaint against the Windsor Police Service.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that it does not have jurisdiction to deal with claims of discrimination relating entirely to the adjudicative functions of a statutory tribunal.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment and membership in a vocational association on the ground of ethnic origin.

A hearing was scheduled, but the applicant failed to attend.

After waiting 30 minutes and confirming that the applicant had notice of the hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the application due to the applicant's non-attendance.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination after being denied attendance at a fundraising event.

The Tribunal scheduled an expedited in-person hearing.

The applicant, residing in Calgary, requested a teleconference hearing or a decision based on written materials, stating she would not attend in person.

The respondent objected to a teleconference due to the need for oral evidence and credibility findings.

The Tribunal cancelled the hearing, finding an in-person hearing necessary, and ordered the applicant to indicate by a specified date whether she wished to proceed with the application, failing which it would be deemed abandoned.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in the provision of goods, services, and facilities, along with a Request to Expedite under Rule 21 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant sought to attend an event on May 22, 2009, making the matter time-sensitive.

The respondent did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal granted the Request to Expedite, finding that the circumstances were truly urgent and that the issues would become moot if not heard before the event date.