Naomi Overend

The corporate and individual respondents brought a request to remove six individual respondents from a human rights application alleging workplace harassment and discrimination.

The corporate respondent accepted vicarious liability for the individuals' actions.

Applying the Persaud test, the Tribunal found no compelling reason to continue the proceeding against three of the individuals whose alleged conduct was secondary and against whom no individual remedies were sought.

The request was granted for those three individuals, but denied as premature for the remaining three individuals pending mediation and the resolution of other preliminary issues.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment and membership in a vocational association.

The union requested intervenor status, which the Tribunal granted.

The applicant requested to amend the application to include the ground of disability, which was also granted.

The Tribunal directed the parties to provide further written submissions regarding the respondents' request to defer the application pending the conclusion of related grievances, and regarding the Tribunal's jurisdiction over the vocational association allegation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of creed, claiming her employer failed to accommodate her inability to work on Sundays.

The applicant's union requested intervenor status, which the applicant opposed.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene, noting that a bargaining agent almost always has an interest in a member's application.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed for delay.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss at this stage, finding insufficient information to determine whether the allegations constituted a series of incidents within the one-year time limit.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the corporate and individual respondents.

Subsequently, the corporate respondent initiated restructuring under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA), and the Superior Court issued an order staying all proceedings against it.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the applicant to advise whether she intends to continue her application against the respondents.

If she intends to proceed against the corporate respondent, she must provide submissions on the effect of the CCAA stay and whether she has sought leave from the Superior Court or consent to lift the stay.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings asking the Tribunal to order the respondent to provide the corporate name of a store located in its mall, so that the applicant could add the store's owner as a respondent.

The respondent refused to provide the information without an order.

The Tribunal granted the request under Rule 1.7(p) of the Rules of Procedure, ordering the respondent to provide the correct corporate name to facilitate the fair and expeditious resolution of the matter.

The applicant filed a human rights application while a union grievance proceeding based on the same facts was ongoing.

The union requested intervenor status, which the Tribunal granted as the union is the bargaining agent and would be affected by any remedy.

The respondent and the union requested that the application be deferred pending the completion of the grievance proceeding.

The Tribunal deferred the application, noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority to enforce human rights obligations and that deferral is appropriate when concurrent proceedings raise the same human rights issues.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in medical services provided by a physician at St. Michael's Hospital.

The applicant subsequently requested to add the hospital as a respondent.

The hospital opposed the request, arguing the physician was an independent contractor and that it would be prejudiced by the delay.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding the hospital was a necessary party because the physician might be considered an agent of the hospital, and the applicant alleged the hospital failed to adequately respond to his internal complaint.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in housing on the basis of sex and reprisal against a housing co-operative.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal granted the applicant's request to anonymize his name to protect the identities of his minor children, and granted his request to remove the individually-named respondents.

The Tribunal denied the respondents' request to defer the application pending a Superior Court proceeding regarding rent arrears, finding no connection between the proceedings.

The Tribunal also denied the applicant's request for an interim remedy regarding his housing charges, as the reprisal allegations underlying the request were not part of the current application.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent, alleging discrimination in employment.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the claim appeared to be outside its jurisdiction, as it concerned events involving the applicant's previous employer, whose assets were purchased by the respondent without assuming liability.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice within the required timeframe.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of record of offences.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction, as the applicant denied discrimination based on a federal or provincial offence.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice within the required 30 days.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant failed to communicate with the Tribunal within 30 days of an interim decision regarding a CCAA bar, as directed.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a Request for Order during Proceedings to amend her human rights application to add further particulars of alleged ongoing discrimination that occurred after her original filing.

The respondents did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal granted the amendment, noting the ongoing nature of the allegations, the timeliness of the request, and the absence of prejudice to the respondents.

The applicant filed a human rights application based on facts that were also the subject of two ongoing union grievances.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer.

The respondent supported deferral, while the union took no position and the applicant did not file submissions.

Applying the principle that concurrent legal proceedings raising the same human rights issues should be deferred to the grievance process, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming she was terminated because she could not return to her pre-injury duties.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed or deferred because the applicant was appealing a WSIB decision regarding her fitness to work.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application but ordered it deferred pending the conclusion of the WSIB proceeding, as the WSIB appeal would determine the factual underpinning of the human rights claim.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment following his termination.

He also filed an application with the Public Service Grievance Board (PSGB) challenging the termination but not alleging discrimination.

The respondents requested that the human rights application be deferred pending the conclusion of the PSGB arbitration.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding a significant overlap in the factual basis for the two proceedings and noting that grievance arbitrators have the power and responsibility to enforce human rights obligations.

The applicant filed a human rights application while a union grievance proceeding based on the same facts was ongoing.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer.

Both the respondent and the union supported deferral.

Noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority to enforce human rights statutes, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in housing.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the applicant had previously filed and withdrawn a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission concerning the same subject-matter.

The Tribunal found that subsection 53(8) of the Human Rights Code bars applications that are substantially the same as a previous complaint, even if that complaint was withdrawn.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in housing and employment on the basis of race and reprisal, claiming he was subjected to radiation bombardment by the police at his apartment.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss as the allegations appeared outside its jurisdiction.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no nexus between the alleged unfairness and any ground under the Human Rights Code, nor any evidence that the alleged conduct resulted from the applicant claiming or enforcing a right under the Code.

The applicant, a labourer/driver, alleged that his employer made crude and offensive comments of a sexual nature on his last day of work, constituting sexual harassment.

He further alleged that his subsequent termination was a reprisal for not responding to the advance.

The Tribunal found that the offensive remarks were made and constituted sexual harassment, awarding $2,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

However, the Tribunal found no evidentiary link between the harassment and the termination of employment.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in the provision of services on the basis of disability against his former WSIB representative.

The applicant brought several preliminary requests, including to substitute the individual representative as the respondent, to add reprisal as a ground based on a defamation claim filed against him, and to add the WSIB as a respondent.

The Tribunal granted the substitution but denied the other requests, noting that court pleadings are protected by absolute privilege and cannot constitute a reprisal.

Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the applicant alleged negligence and fraud but failed to link the respondent's conduct to his disability.