Ruth Carey

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to compel the respondent to produce all arguably relevant documents in its possession.

The respondent failed to comply with the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure regarding document disclosure and did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, ordering the respondent to deliver the documents and warning that failure to comply could result in the Tribunal refusing to consider its evidence at the hearing.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend the Application, which the respondent did not oppose.

The respondent also requested to amend its Response and to remove a personally named respondent as a party, to which the applicant consented after receiving assurances regarding vicarious liability.

The Tribunal granted the requests to amend the pleadings and removed the personally named respondent from the Application.

The respondents filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to dismiss the applications or exclude documentary evidence, alleging the applicants failed to produce arguably relevant documents by the December 19, 2013 deadline.

The Tribunal denied the request, explaining that because the hearing dates were rescheduled on consent, the deadline for document exchange under Rule 16.1 automatically shifted to January 21, 2014.

The applicants had attempted to courier their documents on that date.

The Tribunal found no failure by the applicants to meet their obligations and no prejudice to the respondents.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming she was laid off after taking a medical leave.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed several preliminary requests.

On consent, a personally named respondent was removed from the application.

The applicant's union was granted intervenor status.

The respondent's request for a summary hearing was denied because there was a central factual dispute regarding the timing of the decision to lay off the applicant.

The respondent's request to dismiss the application under section 45.1 of the Code or as an abuse of process was deferred until after the parties attempt mediation.

The respondent in a human rights application regarding termination of employment sought an interim order to access the applicant's personal health information held by its Occupational Health and Claims Management Section, and for an extension of time to file its Response.

The applicant consented to the access but sought to limit disclosure and the length of the extension.

The Tribunal granted the request to access the health information, limiting disclosure to necessary disclosures only, and granted a 15-day extension of time for the respondent to file its Response.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the Children's Aid Society and its employees when they took his child into care.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success, or alternatively, to defer it pending an ongoing child protection application before the Ontario Court of Justice.

The Tribunal found that the same underlying events gave rise to both proceedings and that the child protection proceeding was well advanced.

To avoid inconsistent findings of fact, the Tribunal deferred the human rights application pending the conclusion of the child protection proceedings.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment and contracts based on disability.

The parties previously settled liability and public interest remedies, leaving only personal remedies to be determined.

At the scheduled hearing, the Tribunal found the parties were not prepared to proceed and converted the hearing to a preliminary hearing.

On consent, the Tribunal issued procedural orders regarding document production, witness statements, and the scheduling of the remedy hearing.

The applicant, a doctoral student with post-concussion syndrome, alleged that the respondent university failed to accommodate his disability during his comprehensive examination.

Mid-way through the hearing, the respondents requested that the application be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the respondents had provided all accommodations recommended by the applicant's medical professionals.

The applicant failed to provide medical evidence linking his requested accommodations—specifically, changing the exam format to eliminate the written component or removing all deadlines—to his disability.

The Tribunal concluded there was no reasonable prospect of success for either the substantive or procedural duty to accommodate claims and dismissed the application.

The applicants, spouses employed by the respondent school board, filed human rights applications alleging discrimination based on creed after being denied paid time off for Greek Orthodox Good Friday because they could not provide a letter from their priest confirming attendance.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal consolidated the applications, granted the union intervenor status, and removed the individual supervisors and HR manager as personal respondents, finding that the corporate respondent was fully capable of responding to and remedying any Code infringement arising from the enforcement of its policy.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to goods, services and facilities because of disability.

The Tribunal directed a summary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

Neither party attended the scheduled teleconference hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application regarding a traffic stop that occurred more than one year prior.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to be outside the one-year limitation period under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

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

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

The applicant, a clothing store owner who provided gowns for a beauty pageant, alleged discrimination on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, and disability after she was asked to leave the preliminary competition and denied entry to the final event.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's belief that her treatment was linked to a protected ground was based on speculation rather than evidence.

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

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to amend the Application to include public interest remedies, order disclosure of documents, and exclude certain documents from evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding the amendments were unnecessary or moot, the documents were already disclosed or non-existent, and the evidentiary concerns were addressed by the respondent's intention to call the document authors as witnesses.

However, the Tribunal directed the respondent to provide more detailed witness statements.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings asking the Tribunal to re-activate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the outcome of related union grievances.

The applicant argued that the grievance process was lengthy and his livelihood was at stake.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the reasons provided did not outweigh the primary purpose of deferral, which is to avoid inconsistent decisions on overlapping facts and legal issues.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed her application for lack of jurisdiction due to delay under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued that new facts, specifically a change in the law regarding the Social Benefits Tribunal's jurisdiction, justified reconsideration.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the alleged change in law was not new evidence and would not have altered the conclusion that the delay was not incurred in good faith.

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

The parties, including the Ontario Human Rights Commission as intervenor, reached minutes of settlement resolving the public interest issues.

The Tribunal issued an interim consent order requiring the employer and union to revise their collective agreements to ensure seniority accrues for up to 36 months for employees on unpaid leave due to a Code-related disability, and to make retroactive seniority adjustments.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceeding asking the Tribunal to order the respondent to pay witness conduct money for a witness the applicant intended to call for cross-examination.

The witness was originally proposed by the respondent, who later decided to rely on her affidavit instead.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that witness fees are an item of costs and the Tribunal does not have the authority to award costs.

The Tribunal permitted the applicant to call the witness via teleconference.

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to amend their Response to the Application and requesting further production of the applicant's financial and telephone records.

The Tribunal allowed the amendments related to the dates of the applicant's vacation request, as they were relevant to the respondents' defence that the applicant was not disabled.

However, the Tribunal denied the amendments adding background details about other employees.

The Tribunal also denied the requests for further document production, finding that the respondents failed to establish how the requested records would prove or disprove any factual or legal issue in dispute.

The applicant, a teacher, alleged age discrimination and reprisal after his health benefits ceased at age 65.

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

The Tribunal found that section 25(2.1) of the Human Rights Code provides a complete defence to the age discrimination claim regarding benefits, meaning it has no reasonable prospect of success unless the applicant's constitutional challenge to that section succeeds.

The Tribunal also dismissed the reprisal claim, finding no evidence that the respondent threatened or took adverse action against the applicant when it negotiated a bridge funding agreement with his union.

The applicant, a 19-year-old student, was hired as a part-time team member at the respondent's restaurant while five months pregnant.

Shortly after disclosing her pregnancy to management, her employment was terminated.

The respondent alleged she was fired for insubordination and lateness.

The Tribunal found the respondent's evidence regarding the alleged insubordination to be inconsistent and not credible.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's pregnancy was a factor in the decision to terminate her employment, constituting discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant was awarded $10,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and the respondent's management was ordered to complete human rights training.