Paul Aterman

The self-represented applicant filed a human rights application in French alleging discrimination based on citizenship and age.

He requested to add a respondent, which the Tribunal interpreted as a premature request to issue a summons for a manager to attend a hearing.

The Tribunal denied the request.

The applicant also requested that the Tribunal translate the respondent's English Response into French.

The Tribunal declined, noting it does not translate documents for parties, but granted the applicant an extension of time to file his Reply so he could seek assistance.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision dismissing her human rights application for delay.

She argued that she had obtained new medical records showing she was incapable of filing on time.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant failed to explain why the records could not reasonably have been obtained earlier and failed to produce the documents to show they were potentially determinative of the case.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application for delay.

He sought to introduce new documents regarding the respondent's employment status to challenge the finding that her employment ended on October 12, 2012.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the documents were available before the original hearing and, in any event, would not have altered the conclusion that the employment relationship ended on that date.

The applicant alleged discrimination and reprisal in employment by the respondent school board and union.

The respondents requested that the Application be deferred because of an outstanding grievance filed by the union that overlapped with the facts and issues in the Application.

The Tribunal granted the request to defer, noting its normal practice to defer when there is a pending grievance with overlapping facts and issues, to avoid conflicting determinations.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of an application alleging age discrimination due to a mandatory retirement policy.

The respondent argued that deferral was appropriate because the parties were involved in a parallel civil action regarding alleged post-retirement solicitation and competition, which would also require determining whether the applicant was an employee or a partner.

The Tribunal denied the deferral request, finding that the core issue in the human rights application (the nature of the employment relationship) was only a minor issue in the civil litigation, and the underlying events giving rise to the two proceedings were not the same.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and family status against his former employer, Total Security Management (TSM), and the successor contractor, Securitas Canada Limited.

Garda Canada Security Corporation, which acquired TSM after the alleged events, requested to be removed as a respondent because it did not assume liability for prior claims.

TSM also requested to be removed, arguing the applicant was employed by Securitas at the time of termination.

The Tribunal granted the request to remove Garda as a respondent on consent, but denied TSM's request because the applicant alleged TSM employees influenced Securitas's decision not to accommodate him.

The applicant requested the reactivation of his human rights application, which alleged discrimination with respect to services based on ethnic origin and disability by the Ontario Disability Support Program and its staff.

The application had been deferred pending the outcome of four appeals before the Social Benefits Tribunal regarding the same underlying issues.

The Tribunal denied the request to reactivate, finding that deferral should continue to avoid the risk of conflicting determinations on the same facts and issues, and noting that the Social Benefits Tribunal appeals were more advanced.

The respondent requested the dismissal of parts of the applicant's human rights application under s. 45.1 of the Code.

The respondent argued that the applicant's allegation of failure to accommodate her carpal tunnel syndrome was appropriately dealt with by a WSIB decision denying her benefits.

The Tribunal refused the request, finding that the WSIB decision addressed causality, not whether the disability was accommodated.

The Tribunal also declined to dismiss the reprisal allegation at this stage, directing the applicant to provide further details regarding the alleged reprisal.

The respondents requested the removal of a personal respondent, a former Associate Dean, from a human rights application alleging racial discrimination in employment.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the alleged conduct did not meet the threshold of compelling reasons to maintain the personal respondent, and noting that the corporate respondent college assumed vicarious liability and had the capacity to implement any potential remedy.

The applicant, who alleged discrimination and reprisal regarding employment due to disability, requested to add the owner and manager of the corporate respondent as a personal respondent.

The applicant argued that the individual respondent was responsible for the refusal to accommodate and the termination, and that the corporate respondent's main asset was facing a court-ordered sale, which could impede recovery of any ordered remedy.

The Tribunal applied the Smyth criteria and granted the request, finding that the allegations supported personal liability, the potential sale of assets provided a compelling reason, and adding the respondent at this stage was fair.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal regarding disability accommodation by his employer and several individuals.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred because the applicant's union had filed grievances regarding the same matters.

The Tribunal found that although the remaining grievance alleged a breach of the collective agreement rather than a Code violation, the arbitrator had the jurisdiction to apply human rights law, and deferral was appropriate to avoid conflicting factual determinations.

The request to defer was granted.

The applicant alleged discrimination with respect to employment because of disability, claiming the respondent failed to accommodate his medical leave and terminated his employment.

The respondent requested that the Application be dismissed or deferred because a grievance arbitration dealing with the same facts and issues was scheduled.

The Tribunal deferred the Application pending the conclusion of the grievance procedure, noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority to enforce human rights obligations and deferral avoids conflicting determinations.

The applicant, a nurse, alleged discrimination and reprisal after her employment was terminated and the respondent reported her to the College of Nurses of Ontario.

The respondent requested the reprisal allegation be dismissed in advance of the hearing, arguing it was statutorily obligated to report the termination and protected by immunity under the Health Professions Procedural Code.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the statutory immunity applies only to reports made in good faith.

As the applicant alleged the report was made in bad faith, the claim could proceed to a hearing, despite the evidentiary challenges posed by the inadmissibility of the report itself.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to contracts against a travel insurance company and two airlines.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss regarding its jurisdiction over the airlines.

The Tribunal found that airlines are federal undertakings under s. 92(10) of the Constitution Act, 1867, and therefore fall under exclusive federal jurisdiction.

The application was dismissed as against the respondent airlines.

The claimant, a minor acting through a litigation guardian, filed a human rights application against an independent school.

The application was brought on the claimant's behalf by a paralegal firm, which charged a fee for doing so.

The Tribunal held that while a legal representative may charge a fee for representation, a person or organization bringing an application on behalf of another under section 34(5) of the Human Rights Code acts in a fiduciary capacity to facilitate access to justice.

Charging a fee to act as the applicant undermines this legislative purpose and breaches the fiduciary obligation.

The Tribunal removed the paralegal firm as the applicant.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment by a former co-worker.

The respondent argued the application was filed out of time, as she had quit her employment more than a year before the application was filed.

The applicant contended the respondent remained an employee because she received maternity benefits.

The Tribunal found the employment relationship ended when the respondent walked off the job, and receiving maternity benefits did not extend her employment status.

The Tribunal rejected the applicant's explanation that he delayed filing because he was waiting for another proceeding involving his spouse to conclude.

The application was dismissed for delay.

The applicant brought two human rights applications alleging discrimination in employment and services.

The respondents requested that the applications be deferred pending the resolution of a related civil action in the Superior Court of Justice.

The Tribunal found a substantial overlap of facts and issues between the applications and the civil action.

To avoid the risk of inconsistent determinations, the Tribunal deferred both applications until the civil action is resolved.

The applicant filed an application alleging reprisal and workplace harassment by her former employer.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the allegations were not linked to any prohibited ground of discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant's submissions in response failed to establish a connection to the Code, instead referencing the Employment Standards Act.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to services because of his association with a person with a disability.

The applicant missed a Landlord and Tenant Board hearing due to his partner's medical emergency and alleged that the Board's staff failed to provide his adjournment request to the presiding member.

The Board proceeded in his absence and subsequently denied his multiple requests for review.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to deal with the matter due to the doctrine of adjudicative immunity, as the Board's decisions to proceed with the hearing and deny the reviews were adjudicative functions.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on race and sex after refusing to work in what he considered an unsafe situation.

The applicant had also filed four union grievances relating to the same incident.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred until the grievances were resolved.

The Tribunal found a significant overlap of facts and issues between the application and the pending grievances.

To avoid the risk of conflicting determinations, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the resolution of the grievance process.