Paul Aterman

The applicant alleged discrimination based on disability and age regarding a work location transfer.

In a case management conference, the respondent sought to exclude portions of the applicant's anticipated evidence, arguing the issues were resolved in a prior Grievance Settlement Board (GSB) settlement.

The Tribunal ruled that evidence regarding the HR advisor's actions was admissible as it was unrelated to the GSB grievances.

However, evidence regarding alleged misrepresentations about severance pay was dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, as it was appropriately dealt with by the GSB settlement.

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

The respondent's response indicated it was an inter-provincial trucking company, raising the issue of whether the matter fell under federal jurisdiction.

The Tribunal directed the parties to provide submissions on jurisdiction, warning the applicant that failure to do so could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant failed to provide submissions by the deadline.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant, an older student enrolled in a Second Career Opportunity program, alleged that his professors and the college administration discriminated against him on the basis of age by treating him unfairly and placing him on academic probation.

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

The applicant admitted he had no evidence to link the alleged unfair treatment to his age, relying only on his belief.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that mere speculation is insufficient to establish a Code violation.

The respondent requested the dismissal of a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability and sex.

The respondent argued the application was filed out of time and that its substance had already been dealt with by a WSIB Appeals Resolution Officer (ARO).

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss for delay, finding the application was filed within one year of the last alleged incident.

The Tribunal also declined to dismiss the application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, concluding that the ARO decision focused narrowly on compensability under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act and did not address the broader human rights issues of accommodation or the allegations of sex discrimination.

The respondent hospital requested an interim order for the production of the applicant's medical records, including his occupational health file, records from a treating surgeon, and his OHIP Personal Claim History.

The applicant, who alleged discrimination based on disability (diabetes) following his termination during probation, had refused consent.

The Tribunal found the requested documents met the low threshold of arguable relevance to the issues of accommodation and the reasons for termination.

The Tribunal ordered the production of the records, subject to strict limitations on their use by the respondent.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to services because of sex and sexual solicitation, as well as reprisal.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide submissions on jurisdiction regarding two of the respondents.

The applicant failed to file submissions despite multiple warnings and extensions.

The Tribunal determined that the applicant abandoned his application and dismissed it.

The applicant, a bus driver, filed an application alleging reprisal after a manager reproached him for taking too many bathroom breaks.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the narrative did not disclose a reprisal under the Code.

In response, the applicant alleged the manager told him to see a doctor, suggesting potential discrimination based on disability or perceived disability.

The Tribunal permitted the applicant to file an amended application to clarify his allegations, failing which the application would be dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, following a workplace back injury and a subsequent claim for psychotraumatic disability.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the outcome of the applicant's appeal to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT).

The Tribunal granted the deferral request, finding that while the psychotraumatic disability claim might not overlap significantly, the WSIAT's determination regarding loss of earnings benefits would likely involve many of the same factual questions regarding the applicant's accommodation requests and the respondent's efforts to accommodate.

Deferral was ordered to avoid the risk of conflicting factual determinations.

The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination based on disability.

The respondent requested dismissal on the basis that it is a federally-regulated enterprise engaged in interprovincial transportation, producing a Canada Industrial Relations Board certification order and a letter from Labour Canada.

The applicant consented to the dismissal.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, noting that the regulation of interprovincial transportation is a matter of exclusive federal jurisdiction under s. 92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The applicant, an Aboriginal public servant, filed an application alleging race discrimination regarding the appointment of a Director without a job posting or competition.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the application pending the resolution of a grievance filed by the applicant.

The Tribunal denied the request to defer, finding that the substance of the application (the staffing process) was distinct from the grievance (workload, workplace climate, and other appointments).

The Tribunal also directed the parties to file submissions on whether the application should be dismissed for delay.

The applicant, a union official, alleged that the respondent employer engaged in a reprisal by withdrawing a job posting after he applied for a lateral transfer.

The applicant claimed the reprisal was due to his advocacy for occupational health and safety standards.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the alleged reprisal was not related to the assertion of human rights protected under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant, a nurse at a correctional facility, filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination, harassment, and constructive dismissal.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred because multiple grievances dealing with the same facts and issues were outstanding before the Grievance Settlement Board.

The applicant did not file submissions opposing the deferral.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the resolution of the grievance proceedings, noting the substantial overlap of facts and issues and the Board's authority to apply the Human Rights Code.

The respondent requested a publication ban and sealing order in a human rights application alleging discrimination based on creed.

The respondent argued that disclosing the identity of its federal customer department and its employees could violate the Security of Information Act and compromise national security.

The Tribunal applied the Dagenais/Mentuck test and found that a full publication ban was overly broad.

Instead, the Tribunal ordered a partial publication ban, requiring the anonymization of the customer department and the specific employees involved, balancing the respondent's right to a fair hearing, national security interests, and the public interest in open justice.

The applicant, a former employee of the Ontario Public Service, brought a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal.

In this interim decision, the applicant requested the production of various documents to support his theory that the respondents' post-settlement actions were tainted with discrimination and an intent to enact a reprisal.

The Tribunal found that the requested documents met the low threshold of arguable relevance, as they could shed light on the respondents' alleged attitude toward the applicant and the reasons for disbanding his division.

The request for production was granted.

The applicants filed human rights applications alleging discrimination based on sex regarding the limited scope of OHIP coverage for in vitro fertilization.

They requested that their applications be deferred pending the determination of two other applications that challenge the same regulation and are further advanced in the Tribunal's process.

The respondent consented to the deferral.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that deferral would minimize costs, reduce uncertainty, and make the best use of Tribunal resources.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination and reprisal following the termination of his employment.

The respondent requested the dismissal of the age discrimination claim for delay, the reprisal claim for lack of jurisdiction, and other complaints as unrelated to protected grounds.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss for delay, finding the applicant alleged a series of incidents within the one-year limitation period.

The Tribunal granted the request to dismiss the reprisal claim, as the alleged reprisal was for asserting rights under the Employment Standards Act, not the Human Rights Code.

The request to dismiss the remaining complaints was denied, as they were factual allegations relevant to the discrimination claim.

The applicant alleged racial profiling and harassment by police officers on three occasions.

The respondent requested to dismiss the October 2011 incident for delay and the January 2012 incident for lack of proof.

The Tribunal denied both requests, finding that the October 2011 incident formed part of a series of incidents within the limitation period, and that it was premature to dismiss the January 2012 incident before the hearing and document production process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment based on disability, including his termination from employment.

The respondent AIDS Network requested that the termination portion of the application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that a union grievance settlement had already dealt with the issue.

The Tribunal found that the grievance settlement, which reinstated the applicant, constituted a proceeding that appropriately dealt with the substance of the termination allegation.

The Tribunal dismissed the termination portion of the application, allowing the harassment allegations to proceed.

The respondents requested to consolidate the applicant's human rights application with another pending application.

However, the applicant requested to withdraw the other application, which was granted in a separate decision.

Consequently, the respondents' request to consolidate was dismissed as moot, and the matter was referred to mediation.

The applicant requested to withdraw his human rights application against his union and its officials, which alleged failure to properly represent him regarding workplace discrimination.

The intervenor employer opposed the withdrawal, arguing it was an abuse of process because the applicant was pursuing a separate application against the employer on overlapping facts.

The Tribunal granted the request to withdraw without conditions, finding no abuse of process and noting that the employer's resources were not significantly engaged by the withdrawal.