Paul Aterman

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in housing.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss directing the applicant to provide details regarding the allegations against several personal respondents.

The applicant failed to provide the requested details.

As the Tribunal has no authority to deal with allegations unless they set out how the respondents violated the Code, the application was dismissed against those specific personal respondents.

The applicant in a human rights complaint alleging employment discrimination requested an extension of time to file a Reply and an order for the production of documents from the respondents.

The respondents argued the request was premature as no Notice of Hearing had been issued and mediation was pending.

The Tribunal agreed with the respondents, finding no exceptional circumstances to depart from its normal practice of requiring disclosure only after a hearing date is set.

The request for document production was denied, and the applicant was ordered to file her Reply within 14 days.

The applicant alleged discrimination by the respondent university based on place of origin, ethnic origin, creed, family status, and reprisal, specifically regarding the university's delay in providing documents to the Ontario College of Teachers and the contents of those documents.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding that the allegations regarding the applicant's practicum had already been decided in a previous decision, and there was no evidence to support the claim that the delay in providing documents was discriminatory.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability after the Ministry of Transportation suspended his driver's licence due to a medical report indicating he posed a safety risk.

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

The Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction to consider the application because section 47(2) of the Human Rights Code and section 19 of the Drivers' Licences Regulation under the Highway Traffic Act explicitly shield the Ministry's medical fitness decisions from Code scrutiny.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application on the basis that he had signed a full and final release.

The applicant argued he had new evidence and that the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence.

The Tribunal found that the new evidence was available prior to the hearing and was not determinative of whether the release was signed under duress.

The Tribunal also found no conflict with established jurisprudence.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on race, place of origin, and gender identity regarding events from 2005.

The Tribunal had previously dismissed two similar applications by the applicant concerning the same events.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, and after reviewing the applicant's written submissions, concluded that the application was barred by section 53(8) of the Human Rights Code because its subject-matter was substantially the same as a complaint previously filed with the Commission and withdrawn by the applicant.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application against the London Police Services Board for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant argued the original decision was wrongly decided and misinterpreted his allegations of discriminatory police conduct.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding the applicant was merely attempting to reargue issues already decided and failed to establish any of the criteria required for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing due to the unanticipated illness of its counsel.

The applicant's counsel did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that the illness constituted an exceptional circumstance justifying the request, and directed the Registrar to reschedule the hearing for four consecutive days.

The applicant filed a second request for reconsideration of an interim decision that denied her requests to change the hearing venue, have the Commission monitor the application, and assign a specific adjudicator.

The applicant made unprofessional and insulting comments about the adjudicators.

The Tribunal denied the request, reiterating that it does not reconsider interim decisions.

The Tribunal also directed the applicant to conduct herself with courtesy and respect, warning that failure to do so could result in the application being dismissed for abuse of process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability, sex, and family status, as well as reprisal, culminating in the termination of her employment.

The respondent requested that allegations predating the termination be dismissed for delay under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, and that all allegations be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the pre-termination allegations were sufficiently related in time and kind to form a series of incidents culminating in the termination, and therefore were not out of time.

The Tribunal also declined to hold a separate summary hearing on the prospects of success, directing that the merits be determined at the full hearing.

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

The Tribunal issued Notices of Intent to Dismiss because the applicant had also commenced a parallel civil action in the Superior Court of Justice against the same respondents.

Upon reviewing the Statement of Claim, the Tribunal found that the civil action did not allege Code violations or seek Code remedies, meaning section 34(11) of the Code did not apply to bar the applications.

The Tribunal retained jurisdiction but directed the parties to provide submissions on whether the applications should be deferred pending the civil action and whether they should be consolidated.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because he was in custody, denied bail, and had a conflicting criminal court appearance.

The respondents opposed the request and sought to have the application dismissed as abandoned, arguing the applicant's inability to attend resulted from his own misconduct.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding the circumstances exceptional and noting there was no evidence the applicant was abusing the Tribunal's process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment more than a year after the last alleged incident.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed for delay.

The applicant argued the delay was due to psychological disabilities and provided a doctor's letter.

The Tribunal found the medical evidence lacked specificity and was contradicted by the applicant's ability to seek legal advice, attend court, and find employment during the same period.

The Tribunal concluded the delay was not incurred in good faith and dismissed the application.

The applicant, an employee at a homeless shelter, filed a human rights application alleging reprisal after being disciplined for his handling of a client.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application did not link the alleged unfair treatment to any prohibited grounds of discrimination under the Human Rights Code, nor did it allege reprisal for exercising Code rights.

Finding that it lacked jurisdiction over allegations of general workplace unfairness, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The applicant, a caretaker, filed a human rights application alleging the respondent school board failed to accommodate her disability.

A union grievance regarding the same issues had already been referred to arbitration.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the outcome of the arbitration.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting its normal practice to defer applications where there is significant overlap of facts and issues with a pending grievance arbitration.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of record of offences after being told to get off a computer at an employment search facility.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application did not describe how the conduct was discriminatory.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination and reprisal after being removed from his volunteer position as Chief Flight Instructor at a model aviation club.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed because it was incorrectly framed as employment discrimination and was filed outside the one-year time limit.

The Tribunal refused to dismiss the application on the employment framing, treating it instead as discrimination in services.

The Tribunal scheduled a preliminary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed for delay and whether it has no reasonable prospect of success against the personal respondent.

The applicant requested to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending a grievance arbitration.

The applicant argued she was not given a fair opportunity at the arbitration hearing and that the Tribunal would be more expeditious.

The Tribunal noted that the arbitration was already seven days in, and the union had indicated a desire to withdraw the grievance, which the City opposed.

The Tribunal denied the request to reactivate, finding that doing so in the middle of the arbitration would undermine the purpose of the initial deferral.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability regarding the WSIB's calculation of his earnings following a workplace injury in 2000.

The WSIB's decision was made in 2002.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for delay.

The applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the 12-year delay in pursuing his rights under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability against Rogers Communications Limited.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the respondent appeared to be a federal undertaking, placing the matter outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the NOID.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.