Paul Aterman

The respondent requested the dismissal of an age discrimination application regarding driver's licence testing for individuals over 80, arguing it was barred by s. 53(8) of the Human Rights Code.

The respondent claimed that because a similar complaint had been filed by a different person under the old Part IV, the current application was barred.

The Tribunal denied the request, holding that s. 53(8) only prevents the same person from relitigating a previously resolved complaint.

However, the Tribunal directed the applicant to provide written submissions on whether it had jurisdiction to hear the matter, given that the relevant regulation applies despite the Code.

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

The original application alleged that the union and personal respondents failed to adequately represent him in discipline proceedings due to discriminatory reasons.

The Tribunal denied the request for reconsideration, finding that the applicant failed to establish any of the criteria under Rule 26.5, as he was attempting to re-argue his case and did not demonstrate how the decision conflicted with established case law or involved a matter of public importance.

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

The original application alleged discrimination in employment and claimed that a grievance settlement leading to his resignation was signed under duress.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that the applicant was merely attempting to re-argue his case and failed to establish any of the criteria required under Rule 26.5 for reconsideration.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application for delay.

The applicant argued that the decision failed to accurately reflect the facts and her disability, and that it absolved employers of their duty to accommodate.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was attempting to re-argue her case and did not establish any new facts, conflict with established jurisprudence, or matters of public importance.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The respondent requested an order directing the applicant to produce all arguably relevant documents, including medical documents relating to her absence from work.

The applicant failed to respond to the request or comply with the Tribunal's earlier direction to exchange documents.

The Tribunal granted the respondent's request, ordering the applicant to produce the documents within seven days, failing which her application may be dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant, a driver for the respondent, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on multiple grounds and reprisal following a verbal altercation with a co-worker in the workplace parking lot.

The applicant alleged the respondent failed to sanction the co-worker.

At a summary hearing, the Tribunal found the applicant could not establish any link between the incident and the prohibited grounds of discrimination, noting the applicant used the grounds as a catch-all for general unfairness.

The application was dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant filed an application alleging racial discrimination in the provision of police services.

Due to a lack of clarity in the initial narrative, the Tribunal scheduled a summary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.

At the hearing, the applicant, having retained counsel, proposed to amend the application to provide specific details of an alleged discriminatory police stop and search.

The respondent consented to the amendment.

The Tribunal ordered that the application not be dismissed at this stage and directed the applicant to file an amended application.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code alleging age discrimination in employment.

The Tribunal initially issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting that the narrative in the application did not link the alleged harsh treatment by her supervisor to her age.

Upon reviewing the applicant's written submissions and Form 1-A, the Tribunal found that the applicant had specifically alleged her supervisor took advantage of her youth and inexperience.

The Tribunal concluded a sufficient link to a Code ground was established and allowed the application to proceed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging the respondent failed to accommodate his knee injury.

The respondent requested the production of the applicant's Employee Health and Rehabilitation file and clinical notes from his treating medical practitioners.

The Tribunal found the requested documents met the threshold test of arguable relevance, as they speak directly to the nature of the disability and what the respondent knew to accommodate it.

The Tribunal ordered the production of both groups of documents.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of disability.

She also filed a union grievance alleging a failure to accommodate her disability based on the same facts.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the resolution of the grievance proceedings.

The Tribunal noted the clear overlap between the grievance and the application, and that the grievance was proceeding to arbitration.

As the applicant did not provide submissions opposing the deferral, the Tribunal deferred the application until the grievance proceedings are resolved.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in services based on disability, claiming the respondent hospital misdiagnosed a foot problem and wrongfully detained him under a Form 1 psychiatric assessment.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

Upon reviewing the applicant's written submissions, the Tribunal found the application was not plain and obviously outside its jurisdiction, as the narrative established a link between the respondent's actions and a perceived mental health disability.

However, the Tribunal scheduled a summary hearing to determine if the application has a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant, a painter, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability after being terminated by the respondent.

The applicant suffered from a recurring stomach condition that caused him to miss work.

While the previous owner accommodated his absences, the new owner terminated his employment, citing unreliability due to sickness and customer complaints.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's illness was a disability under the Code and that the respondent failed to accommodate him to the point of undue hardship.

The Tribunal concluded that the disability was a factor in the termination and awarded the applicant $1,760 in lost earnings.

Le requérant a déposé une requête alléguant la discrimination en matière d'emploi.

Le Tribunal a émis un avis d'intention de rejeter la requête car le dernier incident allégué semblait avoir eu lieu plus d'un an avant le dépôt, soulevant une question de compétence.

Le requérant n'a pas présenté d'observations sur la question du retard dans le délai prescrit.

Par conséquent, le Tribunal a jugé que le requérant avait abandonné sa requête et l'a rejetée.

The applicant, a tenant with a mobility disability, requested an onsite parking space from his landlord to accommodate his deteriorating condition.

The landlord refused the request, citing a policy of only offering available onsite spaces to new tenants for commercial advantage and to avoid friction among existing tenants.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario found that the landlord breached both the procedural and substantive components of the duty to accommodate.

The Tribunal ordered the landlord to provide the applicant with an onsite parking space, pay $5,000 in compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and complete human rights training.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of disability, and also filed two grievances based on the same facts.

The Tribunal invited submissions on whether the application should be deferred pending the resolution of the grievances.

Neither party filed submissions.

The Tribunal deferred the application on its own initiative, noting the substantial overlap of facts and issues and the ability of the grievance process to address human rights issues.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding requested the production of various documents, including student records and teacher evaluations, and sought permission to record the hearing.

The respondent requested that the applicant provide detailed witness statements and cease discussing the case at the workplace.

The Tribunal denied the applicant's requests for document production and recording, ordered the bifurcation of the hearing into liability and remedy phases, and directed the applicant to provide detailed witness statements.

The Tribunal also noted the applicant's undertaking not to discuss the case at the workplace.

The applicant, a former local union president, alleged discrimination on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, and ethnic origin, as well as reprisal, following her suspension from union membership for alleged misappropriation of funds.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal found that the applicant provided no evidence linking her treatment to any prohibited ground under the Code, and her reprisal claim did not involve the assertion of human rights.

The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

La requérante a demandé l'ajournement de son audience prévue les 24, 25 et 26 avril 2013 en raison d'un conflit avec ses examens de fin d'année au collège.

Bien qu'elle n'ait pas fourni toutes les informations demandées par le Tribunal dans une décision provisoire antérieure, elle a soumis une lettre confirmant ses dates d'examen les 23, 24 et 25 avril.

Le Tribunal a conclu qu'il s'agissait de circonstances exceptionnelles justifiant un ajournement partiel pour éviter de forcer la requérante à choisir entre ses études et sa requête.

L'ajournement a été accordé pour les 24 et 25 avril, l'audience devant commencer le 26 avril.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal after being terminated from her position as a probationary Student Support Person.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal dismiss or defer the application pending the resolution of the applicant's duty of fair representation complaint before the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB).

The Tribunal denied the request to defer, finding that the OLRB and Tribunal proceedings raise different issues, involve different parties, and offer different potential remedies.

The Tribunal granted the union's request for intervenor status, noting its interest in the allegations and potential remedies.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability (drug addiction and depression) by his former employer.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed because it was filed more than one year after the last alleged incident of discrimination.

The applicant argued the delay was incurred in good faith due to his disabilities.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide medical evidence demonstrating he was so disabled that he could not file an application, noting he had published newspaper articles, podcasts, and a book during the delay period.

The application was dismissed for delay.