Paul Aterman

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in services based on disability and family status.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application failed to identify specific acts of discrimination.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice within the required timeframe.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment against the Atomic Energy Commission of Canada Limited.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that the respondent appeared to be a federal undertaking outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

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 in employment.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to be filed outside the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice or provide submissions on the jurisdictional issue.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant alleged that the respondent police services board breached the confidentiality provision of a human rights settlement by disclosing the settlement to the board's executive assistant, the deputy chief, and municipal payroll staff.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal held that the term 'Employer' in the settlement agreement must be interpreted practically to include those persons required in the ordinary course of business to implement the settlement, such as administrative and payroll staff.

The applicant sought to amend his human rights application to include further details of alleged discriminatory conduct by his former manager, and to add the former manager as a personal respondent.

The corporate respondent consented to both requests, while the proposed personal respondent opposed them.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, noting it was early in the process and caused no prejudice.

The Tribunal also granted the request to add the personal respondent, finding it necessary to ensure the applicant would have a remedy if the allegations of harassment were proven, as the corporate respondent might not be held liable for harassment under the Code.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of family status.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for delay, as the last alleged incident occurred more than a year before filing.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice or a subsequent direction to file submissions.

The Tribunal concluded the application was abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant requested a review of an earlier interim decision that denied her requests to change the hearing venue, have the Commission monitor the application, and assign a specific member to the hearing.

The Tribunal treated the request as one for reconsideration.

The request was denied because the Tribunal's reconsideration process applies only to final decisions, not interim decisions.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment.

The respondent failed to file a Response despite receiving notice and a warning from the Tribunal.

The Tribunal ordered that the respondent is deemed to have accepted all allegations in the application and waived all rights to notice or participation in the proceedings.

The applicant was directed to file further materials to proceed with the application.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination and harassment in housing based on sex, sexual orientation, and family status, as well as reprisal.

Prior to the application, the applicant and his mother initiated a civil action against the corporate respondent based on substantially overlapping facts.

The Tribunal requested submissions on whether to defer the application pending the resolution of the civil action.

The applicant made no submissions, while the respondents requested deferral to avoid duplication.

The Tribunal exercised its discretion to defer the application to avoid the risk of inconsistent determinations and because the civil action was more advanced.

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

A teleconference hearing was scheduled to determine whether the application should be dismissed for delay, as it was filed more than a year after the last alleged incident.

The applicant failed to participate in the teleconference despite receiving notice.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded the application was abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant, who is visually impaired, alleged that the respondent discriminated against him on the basis of disability when it did not hire him for a Community Organiser position.

The applicant claimed that the respondent decided not to hire him after he asked for assistance to find the elevator following his interview.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and found that the applicant provided no evidence, beyond his own speculation, to link the respondent's decision not to hire him to his disability.

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

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment.

The applicant also filed a parallel complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC).

The Tribunal deferred consideration of the application pending the CHRC's determination of its jurisdiction over the complaint, to avoid duplication of proceedings and the risk of inconsistent determinations.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability against her former employer, the TTC.

She later requested to remove the TTC as a respondent and add her union, alleging the union discriminated against her by failing to adequately support her during the grievance process following her termination.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing and found that the union had represented the applicant at all available steps of the grievance process for a probationary employee.

The applicant could not point to any evidence suggesting her disability was a factor in the union's representation or its advice that she resign.

The Tribunal concluded the application had no reasonable prospect of success and dismissed it.

The applicant, an ODSP recipient living in a rooming house, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability after the respondent car rental company refused to rent him a vehicle.

The respondent required customers without credit cards to provide two utility bills as proof of local residence, which the applicant could not produce because his utilities were included in his rent.

The Tribunal dismissed the application at a summary hearing, finding no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal held that the applicant's inability to produce utility bills or obtain a credit card stemmed from his economic circumstances, not his disability, and receipt of public assistance is not a protected ground for services under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant requested to amend his human rights application to include a public interest remedy, specifically human rights training and a policy concerning racial profiling for the officers involved and the Direct Action Response Team (DART) unit.

The respondents opposed the amendment, arguing it was late and would unduly lengthen the hearing.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, finding that the amendment would not substantially lengthen the hearing as the allegations focused on events limited in time and place.

The Tribunal also noted that the issue of document production had been resolved.

The applicant alleged discrimination in housing based on marital status and receipt of public assistance after being denied a Community Start Up and Maintenance Benefit (CSUMB).

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine whether to reactivate the application following a Social Benefits Tribunal (SBT) appeal.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the SBT had appropriately dealt with the substance of the public assistance allegation under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, and that the marital status allegation had no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant alleged discrimination based on race, colour, ancestry, and gender identity by the respondent police services board following his arrest for domestic assault.

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

The Tribunal found that while the applicant sincerely believed his arrest and the police investigation were tainted by discrimination, he provided no evidence to support this belief.

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

The applicant, a personal support worker, alleged discrimination and reprisal by her employer following a workplace injury.

The respondent requested dismissal of certain allegations, arguing they were resolved through a union grievance or had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss for no reasonable prospect of success and scheduled a teleconference hearing to determine if the grievance appropriately dealt with the substance of the allegations.

The Tribunal also granted in part the applicant's request to amend her application to add specific reprisal allegations, noting the early stage of the proceedings and lack of significant prejudice to the respondent.

The applicants filed human rights applications alleging discrimination based on disability and sex due to the respondent's refusal to fund in vitro fertilization treatments.

Following the scheduling of hearing dates, the Government of Ontario announced a policy change regarding IVF funding and invited one of the applicants to participate in an expert advisory panel.

The parties jointly requested an adjournment of the hearing to allow the advisory process to run its course, which they believed would likely result in a settlement.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that the respondent's willingness to consider the applicants' perspective in formulating a new policy constituted exceptional circumstances justifying the delay.

The applicant requested reactivation of her human rights application, which had been deferred pending a union grievance arbitration.

The arbitrator had upheld her termination and found no discrimination based on disability.

The respondents did not oppose reactivation but requested dismissal under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code and for lack of a reasonable prospect of success on the remaining grounds.

The Tribunal granted the request to reactivate and ordered a summary teleconference hearing to address whether the allegations should be dismissed, whether they have a reasonable prospect of success, and whether certain corporate and personal respondents should be removed or added.