Michael M. Lerner

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

The applicant attempted to introduce new evidence regarding an overheard conversation and repeated previous arguments regarding his alleged wrongful dismissal.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to satisfy the criteria for reconsideration under the Rules of Procedure, as no new determinative facts or evidence were raised that could not have been obtained earlier.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant, a probationary security guard, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, and ethnic origin.

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

The applicant relied on four incidents, including an allegedly overheard comment, being falsely accused of failing to secure a door, being criticized for not asking trespassers for identification, and being offered an alternate placement due to a contractual conflict.

The Tribunal found no link between the alleged conduct and any prohibited Code ground, concluding the application had no reasonable prospect of success and dismissing it.

The applicant filed an Application for Contravention of Settlement Agreement, alleging the respondent failed to pay $25,000 as required by the Minutes of Settlement.

The respondent admitted the breach but claimed impecuniosity, noting he had pending civil actions that might yield a settlement or award.

The Tribunal found the respondent in fundamental breach of the settlement.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the $25,000 forthwith, directed that any proceeds from his pending civil actions be used to satisfy the debt, and awarded an additional $1,000 as a remedy for the contravention.

The respondents requested an adjournment of a hearing scheduled for March 16, 2011.

The personal respondent submitted that the Notice of Hearing was sent to an incorrect address and was only received on February 16, 2011, at which point he immediately advised the Tribunal that he would be out of the country on the scheduled date.

The applicant opposed the request.

The Tribunal found that the incorrect address and the respondent's prompt notification constituted exceptional circumstances justifying an adjournment under the Tribunal's Practice Direction.

The adjournment request was granted.