Paul Aterman

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, following a workplace injury and subsequent disputes over accommodation.

The applicant also had an outstanding claim with the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) regarding loss of earnings.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the application pending the resolution of the WSIB proceedings.

Finding a sufficient overlap of facts and issues, particularly regarding the claim for loss of earnings, the Tribunal ordered the application deferred until the WSIB proceedings are resolved.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled summary hearing teleconference because her representative had a medical condition preventing his participation.

The respondent did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal found that the illness of a representative constituted exceptional circumstances under its Practice Direction and granted the adjournment.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability and family status.

The applicant's union had previously filed a grievance regarding the same facts and issues.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the resolution of the grievance.

The respondents supported deferral, while the applicant made no submissions.

The Tribunal found a clear overlap between the grievance and the application and deferred the application until the grievance proceedings are resolved.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sex discrimination and reprisal in her employment.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that an inspection and orders by an Occupational Health and Safety Inspector dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the Inspector's orders related to machine safety and worker representation, and did not address the applicant's specific allegations of discriminatory treatment or workplace harassment.

The applicant, a mathematics teacher, alleged discrimination based on race, colour, ethnic origin, and creed when he was not hired for a long-term substitute teaching position.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed the applicant's requests for document production.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to provide detailed summaries of verbal complaints about the applicant's performance and to produce documents regarding the successful candidate's qualifications that were considered in the hiring decision.

The Tribunal denied requests for documents showing how the successful candidate was placed on the eligibility list and for demographic lists of teachers, finding them irrelevant or unreliable.

The applicant's request for the Tribunal to record the hearing was also denied.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for March 25, 2013, citing the recent loss of her legal counsel, an unspecified medical condition, and an upcoming absence from the province.

The respondent did not file submissions.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances as required by the Tribunal's Practice Direction, noting her lack of detail regarding her medical condition and absence, and her failure to secure new counsel despite knowing of issues since early January.

The applicant was granted an extension to file her documents.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sexual solicitation by the respondent at his restaurant franchise.

She also filed a claim under the Employment Standards Act.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Code, arguing that the parallel proceeding dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss because no decision had yet been made in the employment standards claim.

The Tribunal directed the parties to provide submissions on whether the application should instead be deferred under s. 45 of the Code.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled summary hearing teleconference due to the death of her father and her need to attend his funeral.

The respondent argued the request should be dealt with under the Tribunal's Practice Direction, which requires exceptional circumstances.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's circumstances were exceptional and granted the adjournment.

The applicant requested to amend her human rights application to provide particulars regarding her allegations of workplace discrimination and harassment.

The respondent opposed the amendment, arguing that it would cause further delay and prejudice.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting that the proposed amendments amplified existing allegations rather than introducing new ones, and that the proceedings were still at an early stage.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal following the settlement of an earlier complaint.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed on various grounds, including that parts were covered by the prior settlement, lacked particulars, or were out of time.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations regarding the delay in appointment and the failure to implement settlement terms regarding selection panels.

However, the Tribunal allowed the allegations concerning the restructuring of the applicant's department, underresourcing, and his subsequent termination to proceed, finding they constituted a series of incidents not barred by delay.

Most personal respondents were removed, except for one against whom specific allegations of reprisal were made.

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

The Tribunal directed the parties to exchange and file documents and witness lists in advance of the scheduled hearing.

Neither party complied with the initial directions or a subsequent Case Assessment Direction.

As the applicant failed to comply with the Tribunal's directions despite being warned of the consequences, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant, a university student with a disability, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination after she was assigned a failing grade (INC) when she could not complete a deferred exam.

The respondents brought a request to dismiss the application for delay, arguing the events occurred more than one year before filing.

The Tribunal found that the respondents' subsequent refusals to retroactively withdraw the applicant from the course were not a series of fresh incidents, but rather the continuing effects of the original discrete decision to assign the INC grade.

As the applicant did not establish that the delay was incurred in good faith, the application was dismissed as out of time.

The applicant, a janitor, went on a three-month medical leave due to stress and heart palpitations.

Shortly after his leave began, the respondent employer permanently replaced him with another worker and subsequently terminated his employment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had a disability and that the respondent failed to fulfill its procedural and substantive duty to accommodate him up to the point of undue hardship.

The termination was found to be discriminatory, and the respondent was ordered to pay $12,000 in damages for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for January 23, 2013, due to a recently diagnosed medical condition requiring urgent attention.

The respondent's representative could not be reached for their position.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, noting that illness is recognized as an extraordinary circumstance justifying an adjournment under its Practice Direction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability (cancer).

The respondent sought to dismiss the application as untimely and as an abuse of process due to a signed release.

The Tribunal found the application was timely, accepting evidence that the original application was lost in the mail and the delay was incurred in good faith without substantial prejudice to the respondent.

The Tribunal ordered a separate preliminary hearing to determine the abuse of process issue regarding the release, and directed the applicant to file a formal request if he wished to add further respondents.

The applicant failed to comply with the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure and a Case Assessment Direction requiring the exchange of documents and witness lists.

As the deadline passed without compliance, the Tribunal concluded the applicant had abandoned her application and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race and disability, claiming the respondent failed to accommodate his workplace injury and terminated his employment.

The applicant's union had previously grieved the termination, and an arbitrator upheld the termination, explicitly dismissing the claims of discrimination.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the arbitration award appropriately dealt with the substance of the application and dismissed it to prevent duplicative litigation.

The respondents brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings to remove three individual respondents from a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment.

The corporate respondent argued it was vicariously liable for the individuals' actions.

The Tribunal applied the Persaud factors and found that the corporate respondent's acceptance of vicarious liability was explicitly restricted to actions within the individuals' legitimate functions.

Because this qualified acceptance raised the possibility that the individuals could be found to have acted outside the scope of their employment, removing them could prejudice the applicant.

The request was denied.

The respondent requested the summary dismissal of the applicant's human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, disability, and reprisal.

The Tribunal found no reasonable prospect of success for the allegations regarding educational requirements, reprisal, and discrimination based on ancestry, place of origin, and ethnic origin, as they lacked an evidentiary basis linking them to Code grounds.

However, the Tribunal found that the allegation of failure to accommodate the applicant's disability was not out of time, as it involved an ongoing duty and recent medical evidence, and allowed it to proceed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming that his modified work following a workplace injury was unsuitable and led to further injury and harassment.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the outcome of the applicant's WSIB appeal regarding the same injuries and loss of earnings.

The Tribunal granted the request to defer, finding a significant overlap of facts and issues between the two proceedings and noting that the WSIB proceedings were more advanced.