Ruth Carey

The applicant, a former student of the respondent school board, alleged discrimination based on perceived disability.

The applicant claimed the respondent failed to provide requested educational supports and services.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and found that the Code does not impose a free-standing duty to accommodate needs unrelated to a Code ground.

Since the applicant did not allege any discriminatory conduct or impact based on disability, and the respondent had offered accommodations which the applicant's mother refused, the Tribunal concluded there was no reasonable prospect of success and dismissed the application.

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceeding asking that the human rights application be dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant had repeatedly failed to meet deadlines for exchanging arguably relevant documents, despite being granted three extensions of time and being warned that failure to comply could result in dismissal.

The applicant also failed to respond to the respondents' request to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had abandoned the application and dismissed it.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of marital status, family status, and association with a person identified by a protected ground, claiming he was not hired by the respondent university because his spouse was already employed there.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding that section 24(1)(d) of the Human Rights Code provides a complete defence for employers who refuse to hire the spouse of an employee.

The Tribunal also found no reasonable prospect of success on the grounds of family status or association.

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

A summary hearing was scheduled, and the applicant's request for an adjournment was denied.

The applicant failed to attend the summary hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled summary hearing to obtain counsel and finish a course, and indicated an intention to record the hearing.

The respondents consented to the adjournment but opposed the recording and requested the hearing proceed in writing.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, finding no exceptional circumstances as required by its Practice Direction.

The Tribunal permitted the applicant to record the hearing subject to undertakings not to publish it.

The respondents' request for a written hearing was denied because section 43(2) of the Human Rights Code entitles parties to an oral hearing before final disposition.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking an adjournment of the scheduled hearing and an extension of time to amend the Application to include a claim for loss of disability benefits.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, noting it was made outside the 14-day period and no exceptional circumstances were cited, especially since the applicant had known of his change in status since April 2013.

The request to amend the Application and call additional witnesses was deferred to be addressed at the beginning of the hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, and disability after being terminated during his probationary period.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant could not point to any evidence connecting his termination to his race or disability, relying only on his own assumptions.

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

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to compel the respondent to provide more detailed witness statements for two proposed witnesses.

The respondent did not file a response.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's witness statements lacked particularity and ordered the respondent to deliver detailed witness statements setting out the particular evidence the witnesses would give.

The applicants, two students with pes planus (flat feet), alleged discrimination when the respondent school board ceased providing them with bussing services.

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

The Tribunal found that while pes planus can constitute a disability if it causes functional limitations, the medical evidence provided by the applicants only indicated a diagnosis and a 'good' prognosis, with no evidence that they could not walk the 1.1 kilometers to school.

The applications were dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant filed two applications alleging discrimination with respect to goods, services, and facilities because of disability, relating to the condition of public walkways.

The respondent requested that the applications be heard together, that a summary hearing be held, and that the scheduled in-person hearing be adjourned.

The Tribunal granted the requests, consolidating the applications and converting the scheduled in-person hearing into a teleconference summary hearing to determine if the applications have a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant in a human rights complaint regarding the administration of the LSAT filed Requests for Order During Proceedings seeking to allow an expert witness to testify via teleconference, to adjourn the hearing, and to compel the production of documents and names of other test-takers.

The Tribunal allowed the expert to testify by teleconference and ordered the production of payment records, finding them arguably relevant.

However, the Tribunal denied the adjournment request as no exceptional circumstances were shown, and refused to order the disclosure of other test-takers' names due to privacy concerns.

The respondent in a human rights application alleging pregnancy discrimination brought a request for an order during proceedings seeking production of the applicant's financial documents, job offer records, and entire medical file.

The Tribunal applied the 'arguable relevance' standard and ordered production of the financial and job offer documents as they were relevant to wage loss and mitigation.

The Tribunal found the request for the entire medical file overly broad but ordered production of limited medical records relating to the pregnancy and reported stress, as the applicant claimed compensation for injury to dignity.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment based on race, colour, place of origin, citizenship, sex, sexual orientation, age, and reprisal.

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

The applicant alleged various incidents of unfair treatment and overheard a remark about his homosexuality, but failed to provide evidence linking the treatment to any Code grounds or showing that he had attempted to enforce his Code rights prior to the alleged reprisal.

The Tribunal found no reasonable prospect of success and dismissed the application.

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

The Tribunal directed the parties to exchange and file hearing materials.

The respondents complied, but the applicant did not.

After the applicant failed to respond to a Case Assessment Direction warning that the application might be dismissed as abandoned, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned and cancelled the scheduled hearing dates.

The applicant tenant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment by her landlord on the basis of disability, marital status, family status, and receipt of public assistance.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations relating to a slip and fall accident, an eviction for rent arrears, and a Law Society complaint against the applicant's counsel, finding no reasonable prospect of success as there was no evidence linking these events to Code grounds.

However, the Tribunal allowed the allegation that the applicant was discriminatorily denied access to the building's laundry room on the basis of disability to proceed to a full hearing.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal scheduled a summary hearing by teleconference and provided proper notice to both parties.

The applicant failed to dial in or communicate with the Tribunal prior to the hearing.

After waiting half an hour, the Tribunal terminated the hearing and dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed her application.

The Tribunal denied the request because it was filed more than 30 days after the original decision without a good faith explanation for the delay.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to establish any of the criteria under Rule 26.5 that would justify reconsideration, as her request merely expressed dissatisfaction with court decisions regarding her child custody and support matters.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled summary hearing because his spouse was undergoing medical treatment for a life-threatening illness.

The respondent objected to the request.

The Tribunal found that the seriousness of the illness and treatment constituted extraordinary circumstances justifying the adjournment under its Practice Direction.

The adjournment was granted.