Michael Gottheil

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.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment.

The respondent failed to file a Response despite receiving notice and multiple extensions.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision deeming the respondent to have accepted all allegations in the application and waived its right to participate in the proceedings, pursuant to the Tribunal's Rules.

The Tribunal scheduled a teleconference hearing for the applicant to make oral submissions.

The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination in employment on the grounds of disability and reprisal.

The respondent failed to file a Response within the required time and missed a subsequent Tribunal deadline.

Counsel for the respondent later requested an extension, explaining that the employee responsible for the Response had left the company.

The Tribunal granted the extension to May 15, 2009, warning that failure to comply would result in the respondent being deemed to have accepted the allegations and waived its right to participate.

The complainant, a Khalsa Sikh, alleged discrimination on the ground of creed after being denied entry to the Old City Hall courthouse with her kirpan.

The Attorney General requested that the complaint against it be dismissed, arguing that court security is the responsibility of the police board, not the Attorney General.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the parties to file submissions on the Attorney General's request to dismiss, clarify whether direct discrimination is alleged, and prepare for a case management hearing to discuss evidence and expert witnesses.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the ground of disability.

The Tribunal previously issued an interim decision deeming the respondents to have accepted all facts alleged due to their failure to file a response.

Subsequently, counsel for the respondents requested an extension to file a response.

The Tribunal directed the respondents to file their response and submissions explaining their delay and arguing their right to participate, holding the previous directions to the applicant in abeyance.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the ground of disability.

The respondents failed to file a Response despite being granted an extension and receiving a 'no response' decision.

The Tribunal deemed the respondents to have accepted all allegations in the application and waived their right to participate, pursuant to Rule 5.5.

The applicant was directed to file any additional documents and indicate whether he wished to make oral submissions before a final decision is rendered.

The respondent brought a request to strike portions of the Commission's hearing brief and reply that allegedly expanded the scope of the original human rights complaint.

The new allegations included claims that the respondent failed to accommodate the complainant's age by lowering performance standards, that early retirement packages constituted systemic discrimination, and that the respondent failed to investigate internal human rights concerns.

The parties resolved several issues at the hearing.

The Tribunal struck the allegations regarding the failure to investigate, finding that raising this issue six years after the amended complaint was filed would cause substantial prejudice to the respondent.

The applicant filed a reprisal claim under section 8 of the Human Rights Code, alleging that the respondents in a separate application sought to have him removed as the representative for his spouse.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision questioning whether acting as a representative constitutes participating in a proceeding under section 8, and whether privilege attaches to a request to remove a representative.

The Tribunal directed the parties to provide written submissions on these jurisdictional issues.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in accommodation on the basis of disability and receipt of public assistance after a failed attempt to purchase a co-ownership apartment unit.

The applicant sought an interim remedy granting her a right of first refusal to purchase any unit in the respondents' building, and requested that her name be anonymized.

The Tribunal granted the request to anonymize due to privacy and safety concerns related to stalking.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the request for an interim remedy, finding that while the application appeared to have merit, the balance of convenience did not favour the applicant, the requested order was overly broad, and the applicant had failed to take timely steps to mitigate her alleged harm.

The applicant, a transgender individual, filed an application alleging discrimination and requested immediate, ex parte steps to protect their privacy and anonymize their identity before the application was served on the respondent.

The Tribunal noted that ex parte orders are extraordinary but recognized the risk of harm to the applicant's privacy interests if their name were disclosed before a formal request could be heard.

The Tribunal issued an interim order anonymizing the applicant as 'XY' and directing strict confidentiality pending the determination of a formal request for an anonymization order.

The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of an interim decision.

The Tribunal declined to entertain the request, noting that under its Rules, only final decisions are subject to reconsideration.

The applicant was advised he could pursue the request once a final decision is issued.

The applicant failed to comply with a previous Tribunal direction to confirm her intention to pursue her human rights application and provide contact information.

The respondent requested that the scheduled hearing be cancelled and the application dismissed.

Noting the applicant's self-represented status, the Tribunal cancelled the upcoming hearing dates but granted the applicant a final extension to advise in writing whether she wishes to pursue the application, failing which it will be dismissed as abandoned.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario ordered that four separate complaints against the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation and various individual respondents be heard separately.

The order was made on the consent of all parties.

The respondents in a human rights application alleging age discrimination requested an order to amend their Response to argue, in the alternative, that age was a bona fide occupational qualification.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding no prejudice to the applicant.

Additionally, the Tribunal noted its inability to contact the applicant and ordered her to provide updated contact information by a specified date, warning that failure to do so could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant filed human rights complaints alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of 'record of offences' after being terminated for having pending criminal charges.

The respondents raised a preliminary objection that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the applicant had not been convicted.

The Tribunal agreed, holding that the clear and unambiguous language of section 10(1) of the Human Rights Code limits the definition of 'record of offences' to individuals who have been convicted of an offence.

The applications were dismissed with respect to the record of offences ground.

The applicant was previously directed to provide further contact information for the respondent after Tribunal correspondence was returned as undeliverable.

The applicant sent an email suggesting the address was correct and that counsel for his former employer had the Application, but failed to provide the required signed Declaration.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide the required information in a signed Declaration within 21 days, failing which the Application would be returned and the file closed.

The parties agreed to adjourn a scheduled case conference and suspend document filing requirements in order to participate in mediation.

The Tribunal ordered the adjournment, suspended the filing requirements, and scheduled mediation for January 27, 2009.

The applicant, a student with an identified exceptionality, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability after the respondent private school expelled him.

The applicant filed a Request for an Interim Remedy seeking reinstatement and a Request to Expedite.

During a teleconference, the applicant's mother advised she was no longer seeking permanent reinstatement but needed time to find an alternative school, which the respondent agreed to accommodate.

The Tribunal found the interim remedy request moot but ordered an in-person case conference to address the request to expedite given the potential impact on the student's well-being.

The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration seeking to nullify a provision of a settlement agreement that barred him from pursuing civil claims against the respondents, alleging he agreed to it under duress.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding it was filed beyond the 30-day time limit without explanation.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that an Order disposing of a complaint following a settlement is not a 'decision' that can be reconsidered under section 45.7 of the Human Rights Code, as the Tribunal does not review or approve settlements.

The Tribunal reconsidered and reversed its previous decision on its own motion.

The previous decision had found the respondent in violation of the applicant's rights because it appeared the respondent had failed to file a Response.

It was later discovered that the respondent had filed a Response on time, but it was not placed on the file due to an administrative error by the Tribunal.

The matter was referred to the Registrar for mediation or a hearing.