Paul Aterman

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The respondent Alliance Bridal requested to amend its Response, which was unopposed and granted.

The applicant requested to amend her Application to expand on the facts and specify monetary amounts, and to add two individuals as personal respondents, arguing that Alliance Bridal is not a registered corporation.

As these requests were unopposed and adding the personal respondents would ensure the applicant could recover any potential remedy, the Tribunal granted the applicant's requests.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application under s. 34(11) of the Human Rights Code because she had filed a civil action seeking remedies for the same facts and issues.

The applicant alleged that the adjudicator who dismissed the case was biased.

The Tribunal denied the reconsideration request, finding that the applicant failed to set out facts supporting a finding of bias and that her assertion was merely an expression of dissatisfaction with a result mandated by the Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging workplace discrimination and subsequently commenced a civil action for breach of contract and negligence, which included an allegation of reprisal.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred pending the resolution of the civil action.

The Tribunal found that section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code did not bar the application because the civil action was largely framed in tort and contract and did not seek relief for the same Code violations.

However, to avoid inconsistent findings due to overlapping facts and issues, the Tribunal ordered the application deferred until the civil action is resolved.

The applicants, a father acting as litigation guardian for his two minor sons and on behalf of his adult son, alleged discrimination and reprisal by the respondent school board regarding disciplinary measures.

The applicants requested to amend the application to add further allegations and new respondents.

The Tribunal granted the request to add allegations but deferred adding the new respondents.

The Tribunal ordered a summary hearing by teleconference to determine whether the application should be dismissed for delay or for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding requested the production of various documents, the removal of personal respondents, and hearing accommodations for his counsel.

The Tribunal granted the removal of the personal respondents on consent.

Applying the threshold of arguable relevance, the Tribunal ordered the production of certain third-party complaint records, dispatch records, and restructuring records, but denied requests for a voicemail recording and the applicant's complete work schedule.

The Tribunal also denied the accommodation requests for the applicant's counsel due to a lack of supporting medical documentation, with leave to renew the request.

The applicant, a tenant who self-identifies as a gay man with a disability and receives social assistance, alleged that his landlord discriminated against him based on sexual orientation and receipt of public assistance when she terminated his tenancy.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario found no evidence of discrimination based on sexual orientation regarding a comment made by the landlord.

However, the Tribunal found that the landlord's eviction letter, which explicitly cited the applicant's receipt of social assistance as a reason for termination, was discriminatory.

The landlord's claim that she objected to the applicant's alleged dishonesty rather than his source of income was rejected.

The Tribunal awarded the applicant $10,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, noting the severe impact of the resulting homelessness, along with $1,200 for lost property and moving expenses.

The landlord was also ordered to complete human rights training.

The applicant in a human rights application alleging employment discrimination and reprisal brought three procedural requests.

The Tribunal denied the request to strike a document allegedly filed by the respondent because the document was not in the Tribunal's file.

The Tribunal granted the applicant a two-day retrospective extension of time to disclose documents, finding no prejudice to the respondent.

Finally, the Tribunal ordered the respondent to disclose its arguably relevant documents within 15 days, as it had failed to comply with its disclosure obligations.

The applicant, who had previously been declared a vexatious litigant by the Tribunal, sought leave to file a new application alleging discrimination by a Divisional Court judge and others involved in his judicial review proceedings.

The Tribunal found that the proposed application fell squarely within the scope of the earlier vexatious litigant declaration, which limited his ability to bring applications related to the termination of his employment.

The applicant failed to satisfy the Tribunal that the proposed application was a legitimate assertion of his Code rights, was not intended to vex the respondents, and would not result in an abuse of process.

The request for leave to file the application was denied.

The applicant, a hotel front desk agent, alleged she was sexually harassed by a lifeguard employed by the respondent and that the respondent failed to address her complaints.

The respondent maintained the relationship was consensual and that the applicant never complained of harassment.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence lacked credibility, noting inconsistencies and a failure to participate in the respondent's investigation once a formal complaint was made.

The Tribunal concluded the relationship was consensual and dismissed the application.

The applicant, an employee with a disability, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination after her disability benefits were denied by the plan administrator.

The applicant's union also filed grievances alleging breaches of the collective agreement and the Human Rights Code regarding the same denial of benefits.

The Tribunal, noting the significant overlap of facts and issues and the pending arbitration hearing, exercised its discretion to defer consideration of the human rights application until the conclusion of the arbitration.

The applicant requested to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred because she had two pending union grievances whose subject matter overlapped with the application.

The applicant provided a Memorandum of Agreement showing the grievances were withdrawn.

As there were no longer any pending grievances, the Tribunal granted the request to reactivate the application and directed the parties to indicate whether they wished to participate in mediation.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The Tribunal sought submissions on whether it had jurisdiction over the corporate respondent, a federally-incorporated not-for-profit that collects and analyzes data about First Nations peoples.

The respondents argued the organization fell under federal jurisdiction pursuant to s. 91(6) (Census and Statistics) or s. 91(24) (Indians) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

Applying the functional test from NIL/TU,O, the Tribunal found that the organization's data analysis activities did not constitute First Nations governance, nor did they fall exclusively under the federal statistics power.

The Tribunal concluded it had jurisdiction to process the application.

The applicant, a combo truck driver, suffered a workplace injury to his shoulder and groin.

After a period of modified work and a return to regular duties, the applicant claimed he was still disabled and requested further accommodation.

The respondent, believing the applicant was malingering and attempting to leverage his injury for better employment terms, refused to offer further modified work and effectively terminated his employment.

The Tribunal found that the issue of the applicant's disability and the initial failure to accommodate had been appropriately dealt with by the WSIB.

However, the Tribunal concluded that the respondent breached both the procedural and substantive components of the duty to accommodate when it refused to engage in further dialogue and terminated the applicant's employment.

The applicant was awarded $15,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, along with compensation for lost wages and retraining costs.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application as abandoned after he failed to file a reply by the extended deadline.

He argued that his physical and mental disabilities prevented him from responding in a timely manner.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding no medical evidence supported his claim and noting that his timely and articulate communications with the Tribunal contradicted his assertion of inability to meet deadlines.

The Tribunal concluded there were no factors outweighing the public interest in the finality of decisions.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability following his termination.

The respondent, which operates a warehouse facilitating the cross-border import and export of meat and CFIA inspections, requested dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, arguing its operations are a federal undertaking.

The Tribunal found that while the respondent does not fall directly within federal jurisdiction, its essential operational nature is integral to both the CFIA and international common carriers.

Consequently, the respondent is a federal undertaking by virtue of derivative jurisdiction, and the Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant alleged that the respondent, the former Lord Mayor of Niagara-On-The-Lake, breached the Minutes of Settlement resolving a previous human rights application.

The settlement required the respondent to recommend that the Lord Mayor's Prayer Breakfast Committee become more inclusive, and if rejected, to resign and remove his name and office from the committee's name.

The recommendation was rejected, and the respondent resigned.

However, the committee continued to advertise the event as the "Lord Mayor's Prayer Breakfast," and the respondent attended in his official capacity, wearing his chain of office.

The Tribunal applied principles of contract interpretation and found that the respondent breached the settlement by failing to dissociate himself and his office from the committee.

The respondent was ordered to make a $500 charitable donation.

The applicant requested that her identifying information, including her name and position, be anonymized in a previous interim decision and any future decisions.

She argued that disclosure of her disability and her allegations of employer wrongdoing would adversely affect her future employment prospects.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant's circumstances were not exceptional and did not justify departing from the fundamental principle of open justice.

The applicant filed an application alleging sexual harassment in employment.

She also commenced a civil action in the Superior Court of Justice against the respondents based on the same facts and issues.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed pursuant to s. 34(11) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the civil action sought remedies for the same alleged Code infringements.

To prevent duplication of proceedings, the Tribunal dismissed the application under s. 34(11).

The applicant requested to reactivate her deferred human rights applications, add a respondent, anonymize her name, and order document production.

The Tribunal denied the request to reactivate, finding that parallel civil proceedings regarding the same underlying dispute over real estate commissions were ongoing and deferral avoided the risk of conflicting determinations.

The Tribunal also denied the request to add Bent Legal Services as a respondent, as it did not exist at the time of the alleged discrimination.

The requests for anonymization and document production were deferred.

The applicant, a former building superintendent, alleged his employment was terminated because he refused a personal relationship with the respondent, a condominium director.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the applicant had commenced a parallel civil action seeking the same remedies.

The applicant provided proof that the civil action had been discontinued.

The Tribunal held that under s. 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, the discontinuance meant the court had not finally determined the issue, allowing the human rights application to proceed.