Paul Aterman

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

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to provide submissions on whether the application should be dismissed for delay.

The applicant failed to respond within the required timeframe.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide a witness list, witness statements, and documentary evidence by a specified date, warning that failure to comply could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to provide the required documents.

Concluding that the applicant had abandoned her application, the Tribunal dismissed it.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the application failed to disclose how the respondents' behaviour related to the alleged ground of discrimination.

The applicant failed to respond to the NOID by the specified deadline.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the human rights application because the applicant had also filed a complaint under the corporate respondent's internal Workplace Discrimination and Harassment Policy.

The Tribunal denied the request, holding that an internal investigation or complaints resolution process does not constitute a 'proceeding' within the meaning of s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, and therefore does not raise the risk of inconsistent decision-making.

The applicant requested to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the outcome of proceedings before an Employment Standards Officer.

The Employment Standards Officer concluded that an employment relationship could not be established, and no appeal was filed.

As the parallel proceedings were complete and the request was timely, the Tribunal granted the request to reactivate the application and directed the respondent to file a response.

Le requérant a demandé le réexamen d'une décision déclarant sa requête en droits de la personne abandonnée après qu'il ne se soit pas présenté le deuxième jour de l'audience.

Il a allégué qu'il était médicalement incapable d'y assister en raison du stress et de l'anxiété, et a fourni des billets médicaux.

Le Tribunal a rejeté la demande de réexamen, concluant que la preuve médicale n'était pas crédible compte tenu du comportement du requérant, du fait qu'il n'avait pas mentionné sa maladie dans ses communications avec le Tribunal, et du fait qu'il avait travaillé comme enseignant suppléant le jour même de son absence à l'audience.

The applicants, who required in-vitro fertilization (IVF) and preimplantation genetic diagnosis due to disabilities, filed human rights applications alleging discrimination after OHIP denied coverage for their treatments.

The respondent requested that the applications be dismissed for delay, as the last IVF treatments occurred more than a year before the applications were filed.

The applicants argued that a recent visit to their doctor, who confirmed the ongoing lack of coverage, constituted a fresh incident of discrimination.

The Tribunal held that the doctor's visit was not a fresh step by the respondent and did not constitute a new incident of discrimination.

As the applicants provided no good faith reason for the delay, the applications were dismissed.

The personal respondent requested a reconsideration of a decision finding him and the corporate respondent jointly and severally liable for sex discrimination in employment.

He argued that he did not receive notice of the hearing through no fault of his own and that he had new evidence to present.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the respondent was aware of the proceedings, had been personally served with the applicant's reply, and failed to update his contact information.

The Tribunal also held that the proposed new evidence could have been presented had he attended the hearing.

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

A summary hearing was scheduled to determine if the application should be dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to attend the teleconference hearing despite receiving proper notice.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned without considering its merits.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal based on disability following her layoff.

The application was deferred pending the outcome of union grievances related to the same layoff.

The grievances were settled through arbitration, resulting in the applicant's reinstatement and monetary compensation for human rights infringements.

The Tribunal held a teleconference hearing and determined that the arbitration appropriately dealt with the substance of the application, including allegations against the personal respondent.

The application was dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicants filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the respondent school board on the basis of race and related grounds.

The respondent requested an order for the production of arguably relevant documents, including the applicants' Ontario School Records (OSRs), Children's Aid Society (CAS) files, and a kinship agreement, as well as a request for particulars regarding the allegations.

The Tribunal granted the respondent's requests, ordering the applicants to either consent to the disclosure of their OSRs or explain why their application should not be dismissed as an abuse of process.

The Tribunal also ordered the production of specific portions of the CAS file and the kinship agreement, and directed the applicants to provide the requested particulars to enable the respondent to know the case it has to meet.

The applicant, who has multiple sclerosis, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination after the respondent denied OHIP funding for a CCSVI angioplasty procedure.

The respondent had refused funding on the basis that the treatment was experimental, a decision upheld by the Health Services Appeal and Review Board (HSARB).

The respondent requested the Tribunal dismiss the application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the HSARB had appropriately dealt with the issue of whether the treatment was experimental.

Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded the application had no reasonable prospect of success, as the applicant could not show she was treated differently from any other person seeking funding for an experimental treatment.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to services because of race, colour, and ethnic origin, claiming the respondent refused to remove information from his police records.

A summary hearing was scheduled to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to attend the teleconference hearing despite receiving notice.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sexual orientation, age, and record of offences after her employment as a sales assistant was terminated.

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

At the hearing, the applicant abandoned the grounds of sexual orientation and record of offences, but maintained that being called a 'young lady' by the store owner constituted age discrimination.

The Tribunal found no evidence that the remark was linked to any disadvantageous treatment or that a benefit was withheld.

Concluding that the application had no reasonable prospect of success, the Tribunal dismissed it.

The applicant, aged 80, alleged that the mandatory driver testing requirement for individuals aged 80 and over under the Highway Traffic Act discriminated on the basis of age.

The respondent requested dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that section 47(2) of the Human Rights Code and section 19 of Regulation 340/94 explicitly exempt the licensing provisions from the Code.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant alleged discrimination based on disability after being terminated following a workplace injury.

The respondents sought to dismiss the application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that a prior Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) decision regarding termination pay had appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal found that while the OLRB review was a proceeding, it only addressed whether the applicant engaged in wilful misconduct and did not analyze whether the applicant's disability was a factor in his termination.

The request to dismiss the application was denied.

The applicant, a waitress at a sports bar, alleged discrimination on the basis of sex (pregnancy) after the respondents introduced a new form-fitting uniform.

When the applicant raised concerns that the uniform would highlight her pregnancy, the personal respondent agreed to exempt her but subsequently stopped scheduling her for shifts and eventually issued a Record of Employment indicating she had quit.

The Tribunal found that the respondents discriminated against the applicant by reducing her shifts to zero and terminating her employment because of her pregnancy.

The respondents were ordered to pay $2,848 for lost income and $17,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and to complete human rights training.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex and sexual solicitation.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the applicant to exchange and file documents and witness statements by specified deadlines, failing which the application could be declared abandoned.

The applicant failed to comply with the directions or provide an explanation.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sex discrimination in employment, claiming the personal respondent acted aggressively towards her and other female employees.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

Assuming the applicant's allegations and witness statements to be true, the Tribunal found there was a reasonable prospect that the evidence could show a link between the applicant's gender and the alleged events.

The application was allowed to proceed to a full hearing.

The applicant brought an application alleging employment discrimination based on race, colour, ethnic origin, and creed.

During the hearing on the merits, the Tribunal ruled certain documents inadmissible.

The applicant requested an adjournment to consult a lawyer, which was denied.

The applicant then failed to attend the continuation of the hearing the following day.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned due to the applicant's failure to appear.