Paul Aterman

The applicant requested to amend her application to add a claim for damages for breach of settlement and requested that the hearing be held in her home due to her age and disability.

The respondent did not oppose the amendment but objected to the hearing venue.

The applicant subsequently proposed providing her evidence by affidavit and participating by telephone.

The Tribunal granted the unopposed request to amend the application and permitted the applicant to provide evidence by affidavit and participate by teleconference.

The applicant, who alleges discrimination in services based on a gambling dependency, requested to amend the style of cause to use his middle name instead of his first name.

He sought this change to prevent prospective employers from discovering his involvement in litigation.

The respondents did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding it consistent with Rule 1.16(a) of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant alleged that the respondent union engaged in a reprisal contrary to section 8 of the Human Rights Code by withdrawing his grievance after he refused to withdraw a separate human rights application against his former employer.

A summary hearing was held to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found no evidence of collusion between the union and the employer, nor any evidence that the union intended to retaliate against the applicant for pursuing his human rights application.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability, age, and record of offences, as well as reprisal.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to provide pre-hearing disclosure of documents and witnesses by a specified date, warning that failure to comply could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to comply or communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because its counsel was called to attend a Coroner's Inquest.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the respondent failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances, as it did not explain what steps were taken to resolve the scheduling conflict and still had ample time to retain alternate counsel.

The Tribunal also issued directions to both parties regarding their obligations to disclose witness lists, witness statements, and hearing documents prior to the hearing.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application for delay.

The applicant argued that the Human Rights Legal Support Centre failed to advise him of the one-year limitation period.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant was attempting to reargue issues already decided and had not met the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

The applicant requested to add Shahrokh Nourmansouri as a personal respondent to the human rights application.

The applicant argued that the proposed respondent was the directing mind of the corporate respondents and that the fluidity of the corporate arrangements created a real risk that the corporate entities might be dissolved before any remedy could be enforced.

The respondents did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding a real risk that the applicant would not be able to enforce a remedy without adding the personal respondent.

The applicant alleged age discrimination after his long-term disability benefits were terminated when he reached age 65.

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

The Tribunal found that the termination of benefits at age 65 is permitted by the exemption in section 25(2.1) of the Human Rights Code, which allows for age-based distinctions in group insurance plans that comply with the Employment Standards Act, 2000 and its regulations.

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

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that declared his human rights application abandoned after he failed to respond to a Case Assessment Direction.

The applicant's counsel argued that they never received the direction due to mail delays caused by an ice storm.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the direction was sent by courier, not mail, and the applicant failed to provide evidence from the courier company or the Tribunal Registry to support the claim of non-delivery.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application for delay.

The applicant argued that new facts and evidence regarding his disabling addiction and depression justified reconsideration.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding it was filed late and the applicant failed to demonstrate that the supporting documents could not reasonably have been obtained earlier.

The Tribunal concluded there were no compelling or extraordinary circumstances to outweigh the public interest in the finality of its decisions.

The applicant alleged that the respondent condominium corporation breached the confidentiality provisions of a settlement agreement resolving a prior human rights application.

The respondent circulated a newsletter to residents mentioning the installation of a ramp at the applicant's unit and the resolution of a human rights legal matter.

The Tribunal found that the newsletter breached the confidentiality agreement by linking the litigation to the settlement terms.

The Tribunal awarded the applicant $1,000 in compensation for the breach.

The applicant, who was separated from her husband, alleged discrimination on the basis of marital status after the respondent employer's new benefit plan provider refused to cover her husband as a dependent.

The plan defined a spouse as someone married to and living with the employee.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the differential treatment was permitted under the exemption in section 25(2) of the Human Rights Code, which allows employers to define 'spouse' and 'dependent' in group insurance contracts in compliance with the Employment Standards Act, 2000 and its regulations.

The applicant, a security guard, expressed an interest in obtaining a Top Secret clearance.

During an interview, he was asked his views on Canada's military involvement overseas.

He responded that his Catholic faith led him to believe that violence and armed conflict are wrong, and he could not support such engagement.

He was subsequently disqualified from the clearance process.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's pacifist views were a sincerely held religious belief and that his creed was a factor in his disqualification.

The respondent failed to call evidence to explain its decision-making process.

The Tribunal awarded $5,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, but dismissed claims for lost income and reprisal.

The applicant alleged that an adjudicator at the Landlord and Tenant Board discriminated against his mother based on her place of origin during a hearing, and that other Board members failed to investigate.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis of adjudicative immunity.

The applicant argued that the Canadian Bill of Rights and principles of natural justice overrode this immunity.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the Bill of Rights does not apply to provincial tribunals and that adjudicative immunity prevents the Tribunal from reviewing the decisions or hearing conduct of other adjudicative bodies.

The applicant sought to amend her human rights application to include new remedies and narrative allegations regarding her disability.

The respondent opposed the amendment and requested production of the applicant's medical records from 2005 to 2011.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to amend, finding no sufficient prejudice to the respondent.

The Tribunal also granted the respondent's request for production, finding the medical records met the threshold of arguable relevance given the applicant's allegations regarding her disability.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on family status and association after her employment was terminated following workplace confrontations.

The applicant also filed a union grievance and faced criminal charges arising from the same events.

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

Finding a clear overlap of facts and issues, and to avoid inconsistent findings, the Tribunal ordered the application deferred until the grievance and criminal proceedings are resolved.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding requested an extension of time to provide two medical witness statements to the respondents and the Tribunal, and requested that the witnesses be allowed to testify by telephone or videoconference.

The Tribunal granted the extension of time, noting that while the applicant's justification was weak, the respondent still had time to prepare and failed to explain how the 14-day delay was prejudicial.

However, the Tribunal denied the request for the witnesses to testify by telephone or videoconference, as the applicant provided no reasons for the request and the nature of the evidence made telephone testimony inappropriate.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination based on place of origin more than a year after his termination.

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

The applicant argued he filed on time alongside his sister's application, or alternatively, that his delay was in good faith due to seeking help from the Workers' Action Centre and mistakenly applying to the Ministry of Labour.

The Tribunal rejected these arguments, finding no evidence of a timely filing and concluding the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The application was dismissed.

The respondents requested the removal of three personal respondents from a human rights application alleging sex discrimination and reprisal.

The applicant consented to the removal of one personal respondent.

The Tribunal removed a second personal respondent who had no direct dealings with the applicant and whose alleged conduct did not justify an individual remedy.

However, the Tribunal maintained the applicant's former supervisor as a personal respondent because he was no longer employed by the corporate respondent, meaning the corporate respondent could not enforce any public interest remedies (such as human rights training) ordered against him if the application succeeded.

The applicant alleged discrimination with respect to services and contracts because of a gambling dependency, claiming the respondent securities brokers encouraged him to make trades with money he did not have.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal declined to add several other brokerages as respondents, as no specific acts of discrimination were alleged against them.

The Tribunal deferred the applicant's request to anonymize his first name, directing him to follow the proper procedural rules.

Finally, the Tribunal directed on its own initiative that a summary hearing be held to determine whether the application has a reasonable prospect of success.