Michael Gottheil

The respondent challenged the Tribunal's jurisdiction to hear an application filed under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code, arguing the underlying complaint had been dismissed by the Commission and was therefore not 'continued' under the transition provisions.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had filed a timely request for reconsideration with the Commission, which had the effect of continuing the complaint.

Consequently, the applicant was entitled to abandon the complaint and file an application with the Tribunal.

The jurisdictional challenge was dismissed, and directions were given for determining further preliminary issues.

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

The respondent failed to file a Response despite receiving notice.

The Tribunal deemed the respondent to have accepted all allegations and waived its right to participate.

The Tribunal also accepted the application despite it being filed outside the one-year limitation period, finding the delay was incurred in good faith due to the applicant's medical issues and that the respondent suffered no substantial prejudice.

A hearing was scheduled to allow the applicant to make oral submissions before final disposition.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The respondent failed to file a Response, and Tribunal notices sent by courier and email were returned as undeliverable.

The Tribunal held that it could not be satisfied the respondent had received actual notice of the proceeding.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide a verified current address for the respondent or to detail the steps taken to ascertain the respondent's contact information before the application could proceed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability after the respondent casino refused to allow him to sit while playing at a dice table.

The respondent failed to file a response to the application.

The Tribunal deemed the respondent to have accepted all allegations and waived its right to participate.

Based on the uncontradicted facts, the Tribunal found that the respondent's requirement to stand at the dice table had an exclusionary effect and violated the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal deferred the issue of remedy to allow the applicant to make submissions.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in goods and services on the basis of creed.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Incomplete Application and later requested a correct mailing address for the respondent, as the one provided was incorrect.

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's communications.

Pursuant to the Tribunal's Rules, the application was not processed and the file was closed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the ground of disability, specifically a failure to accommodate.

The applicant's union, CUPE, filed a Request to Intervene, which the applicant opposed.

The Tribunal deferred a formal decision on the intervention request until after mediation, noting that the union's involvement in mediation would likely be useful given its role as the bargaining agent.

The matter was referred to the Registrar to schedule mediation.

The applicant filed human rights applications against two separate employers, alleging discrimination on the ground of 'record of offences' after being terminated due to pending criminal charges.

The respondents raised a preliminary jurisdictional issue, arguing that 'record of offences' under the Human Rights Code requires a conviction, not merely pending charges.

The Tribunal directed that the applications be considered together to determine this discrete jurisdictional issue and deferred the applicant's requests for an interim remedy for lost wages until the jurisdictional question is resolved.

The applicant filed an application alleging age discrimination and reprisal against her employer and union.

The respondents requested deferral pending an OLRB duty of fair representation complaint, and the union requested dismissal for lack of a prima facie case.

The Tribunal found it unclear whether the application disclosed a prima facie case or if deferral was appropriate, and scheduled an oral hearing to address both issues.

The applicant filed an application under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code.

The respondent challenged the Tribunal's jurisdiction, arguing that the Ontario Human Rights Commission had already made a final decision not to refer the complaint to the Tribunal.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision ordering the parties to provide additional information and submissions regarding the Commission's dismissal and the applicant's request for reconsideration before determining the jurisdictional issue.

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

The application indicated that a complaint based on the same facts had been previously filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission and closed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the parties and the Commission to provide submissions and a statement of facts on whether the application is barred by section 53(8) of the Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant had commenced a civil action pleading a Code violation and had previously filed and withdrawn a complaint with the Commission regarding the same subject matter.

The Tribunal rescinded its Notice of Intent to Defer and ordered the applicant to provide submissions on whether the application is barred by sections 34(11) and/or 53(8) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination based on a neurological illness that resulted in the temporary suspension of her driver's licence.

She requested to expedite the proceedings because her employer set a deadline for her to return to her regular work location or face termination.

Noting that the applicant also filed a union grievance regarding the same matter, the Tribunal issued procedural directions requiring the respondents and the union to file submissions on the request to expedite, potential deferral of the application, and intervention.

The complainant requested that the adjudicator recuse himself from hearing the complaints due to allegations of real or perceived bias, including prejudgment, ex parte communications, and self-interest in maintaining a positive relationship with the Commission.

The adjudicator confirmed there had been no ex parte communications.

However, to avoid prolonging the determination of the complaints and to reduce collateral issues, the adjudicator decided to reassign the complaints to a different adjudicator and vacated the previously scheduled hearing dates.

The parties were unable to agree on a date for a teleconference hearing ordered by the Tribunal to address preliminary requests regarding a breach of settlement complaint.

Noting the unacceptable delay and acrimony between the parties, the Tribunal invoked section 2 of the Statutory Powers Procedures Act to set peremptory dates for both the teleconference hearing and the hearing on the merits.

The complainant brought several preliminary requests, including adding the Ontario Human Rights Commission and its Director of Legal Services as respondents, inquiring into all allegations from an original settled complaint, and seeking remedies for an alleged abuse of process.

The Tribunal noted that some of these requests had been previously rejected and directed a conference call for the complainant to provide reasons why the Tribunal should entertain them again.

The Tribunal also required the complainant to specify the precise remedies sought for the alleged abuse of process.

Following a hearing into a human rights complaint, the Commission advised the Tribunal that a subpoenaed witness who failed to attend alleged the Complainant had offered her $2,000 to provide false evidence.

The Commission requested the Tribunal disregard the hearsay evidence related to this witness and proceed to a final determination.

The Tribunal declined, finding the allegations of witness tampering too serious to ignore, as they impacted the Complainant's credibility and the integrity of the Tribunal process.

The Tribunal ordered the hearing reconvened to inquire into the allegations.

The Commission requested to introduce evidence from its investigators via affidavit rather than in-person testimony.

The Tribunal allowed the introduction of an attendance sheet and letters sent by the Commission to the respondents via affidavit.

Letters purportedly written by the respondent were also allowed to be introduced via affidavit to establish receipt, but not for the truth of their contents.

The Tribunal declined to admit an unsigned witness statement prepared by an investigator from notes, as it had not been confirmed by the respondent and its purpose was unclear at this stage of the proceeding.

The respondents brought a motion seeking the production of two groups of documents from the Commission: investigation materials from a related complaint against a different respondent, and internal Commission documents regarding the handling of the present complaint.

The Commission consented to the production of the first group, subject to a Tribunal order due to FIPPA restrictions.

The Tribunal ordered the production of the first group as they were arguably relevant.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for the internal documents, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to review the Commission's decision to refer the complaint and that internal opinions were not relevant to the hearing de novo.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission and its Director of Legal Services brought a motion seeking relief regarding a prior interim decision, arguing it could be understood as making adverse findings of fact and invading personal privacy.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, clarifying that the prior decision merely referred to allegations for procedural purposes, did not make findings of fact, and gave rise to no adverse inferences against the Commission or its Director.

The Commission brought a motion to add 'marital status' as a ground of discrimination to a complaint alleging the complainant was terminated from her employment because her common-law spouse was HIV positive.

The respondents objected to the amendment, arguing it was too late and unfair.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding that the amendment relied on the same facts already alleged and the respondents failed to demonstrate any real prejudice.