Sheri D. Price

The corporate respondent and its manager brought a request to remove the manager as a personal respondent to a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability.

The applicant did not oppose the request.

Applying the factors from Persaud, the Tribunal found no compelling reason to keep the manager as a personal respondent, as there was no issue regarding the corporate respondent's vicarious liability or ability to remedy any alleged infringement.

The request was granted and the personal respondent was removed.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled summary hearing for personal reasons and because he could not afford legal representation.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant failed to establish extraordinary circumstances as required by the Tribunal's Practice Direction for late adjournment requests.

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

The respondents Manulife, Rau, and Peeler requested that the application against them be dismissed or that Rau and Peeler be removed as parties.

The respondent Acclaim also requested to be removed as a party.

The Tribunal removed the personal respondents Rau and Peeler, finding no compelling reason to keep them as parties since Manulife assumed liability for their actions.

The requests to dismiss the application against Manulife and Acclaim were deferred to the oral hearing.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates and an extension for pre-hearing disclosure because he was still seeking legal representation.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding that the applicant had ample time to retain counsel and that failure to do so did not constitute an extraordinary circumstance.

Both parties had failed to comply with pre-hearing disclosure rules, and the Tribunal directed them to immediately deliver and file the required materials, warning of consequences for non-compliance.

The applicant, a recipient of Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) benefits, alleged that the respondent dental office discriminated against him on the basis of disability and place of origin when it refused to accept him as a patient because he intended to pay with an ODSP dental card.

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

The Tribunal concluded that the refusal of service was based on the applicant's method of payment, not his disability, and that the Code does not prohibit discrimination in services based on receipt of public assistance or place of residence.

The applicant alleged that the respondent discriminated against him on the basis of race and colour by falsifying his HIV test results to show he was HIV-negative, thereby depriving him of medical treatment.

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 prove the test results were false, as he lacked medical evidence and relied solely on his own belief based on symptoms.

Furthermore, there was no evidence linking the respondent's actions to the applicant's race or colour.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application against his employer more than one year after the last alleged incident of discrimination.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss due to the delay.

The applicant argued the delay was justified because he was trying to resolve the issue internally, was unaware of the time limit, and lacked emotional strength due to being on disability leave.

The Tribunal found these reasons did not establish good faith for the delay, noting the lack of medical evidence and the principle that ignorance of the law or internal resolution attempts do not excuse missing the statutory deadline.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a Black man from Haiti, alleged that the respondents discriminated against him on the basis of race, colour, place of origin, ethnic origin, and citizenship during the hiring process for a general labourer position.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's allegations, including being left alone in a room during an interview and not receiving a response to follow-up inquiries, lacked any factual basis to link the respondents' conduct to a prohibited ground of discrimination.

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

The applicant requested an adjournment of a preliminary hearing to allow more time to retain representation from the Human Rights Legal Support Centre.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant's failure to retain counsel in a timely manner did not constitute extraordinary circumstances warranting an adjournment.

The Tribunal also directed the parties to address whether a release signed by the applicant was legally binding, given potential issues regarding consideration and coercion.

The personal respondent requested an adjournment of the hearing because his counsel had lost contact with him and needed time to obtain instructions.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, noting the personal respondent's obligation to keep the Tribunal and his counsel informed of his contact information.

The Tribunal also noted that neither party had complied with pre-hearing disclosure obligations.

The self-represented applicant was directed to confirm her intent to proceed with the application by a specified date, failing which the application would be dismissed as abandoned.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the human rights hearing because an existing Superior Court order prohibited him from communicating with or being in the physical presence of the applicant.

The Tribunal found that proceeding with the hearing would violate the rules of natural justice, as the respondent would be unable to cross-examine the applicant or participate effectively.

The hearing was adjourned, and the applicant was directed to seek a variation of the court order within 90 days to allow the respondent to participate, failing which the application may be dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant, who has a terminal illness and is on a waiting list for subsidized housing, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability.

During a summary hearing, the respondent explained the priority system and the applicant's position on the waiting lists, and added him to an additional list at his request.

Satisfied with the respondent's efforts, the applicant requested to withdraw his human rights Application.

The Tribunal granted the request and closed the file.

The applicant, originally represented by her former employer, requested to be added as the applicant in her own right and to remove her former employer as a party.

The respondent did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting it did not change the nature of the issues or prejudice the respondent.

The Tribunal also granted the applicant an extension of time to comply with pre-hearing disclosure obligations.

The applicant alleged that the respondents reprised against him contrary to section 8 of the Human Rights Code by terminating his employment after he refused to fire other employees without cause to avoid paying severance.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application for delay and lack of reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the right not to be terminated without cause or severance pay is not a right protected under the Code.

Therefore, the applicant had no reasonable prospect of success in proving reprisal for refusing to infringe others' rights under the Code.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing to allow additional time to negotiate a settlement with the respondent and to prepare for the hearing, claiming he had not received the original Notice of Hearing.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, noting that a desire to engage in settlement discussions is not a valid basis for an adjournment under its Practice Direction.

However, the Tribunal granted the applicant a brief extension to file his documents and will-say statements.

The applicant requested an order for the production of documents, including his personnel file, the respondents' English language proficiency standards, and records of complaints regarding other employees' English proficiency.

The respondents argued that PIPEDA prevented the disclosure of the personnel file without written consent.

The Tribunal ordered the production of the personnel file and proficiency standards, finding them arguably relevant and noting that PIPEDA permits disclosure when required by law or compelled by a tribunal.

The request for documents regarding other employees was deferred to the hearing.

The applicant's request for an adjournment was denied.

The applicant, a police officer, filed a human rights application alleging that her union and its executive members discriminated against her on the basis of disability when they withdrew from representing her in a harassment grievance.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's allegations, which included claims that union executives made derogatory remarks about her mental health, established a potential link between the disadvantageous treatment and her disability.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application and directed it to continue in the process.

The applicant alleged that the respondent union discriminated against him on the basis of age by deeming him ineligible for Long Term Disability and Supplementary Unemployment Benefits after he elected to transfer his pension account balance at age 55.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and found that the ineligibility was a consequence of the applicant's voluntary decision to transfer funds, not his age.

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

The applicant, a 62-year-old sales representative, alleged discrimination on the basis of age and disability after his employer suggested he retire and offered a voluntary retirement package.

The respondent argued the suggestion was precipitated by performance issues.

Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal found it could not conclude the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The application was permitted to continue in the Tribunal's process, and the applicant was directed to file additional allegations raised during the hearing in writing.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination, harassment, and reprisal on the basis of disability after his employment was terminated three weeks into a contract.

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

The applicant acknowledged he had no evidence linking his alleged mistreatment or termination to his hearing disability or any other protected ground.

Furthermore, his reprisal claim was based on the employer allegedly ignoring his continuous requests for training and system access, rather than retaliation for claiming rights under the Code.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as having no reasonable prospect of success.