Yola Grant

The applicant alleged that the respondent employer breached a settlement agreement by disclosing her grievance file, including medical records, to the WSIB.

The settlement had resolved a previous human rights application and related grievances.

The Tribunal found that the confidentiality clause in the settlement only bound the applicant, and the requirement to seal her personnel file did not preclude the employer from disclosing relevant records to a statutory body like the WSIB.

The Tribunal also noted it lacked jurisdiction to address potential breaches of the implied undertaking rule or privacy legislation.

The application was dismissed.

The applicants filed human rights applications in 2009 alleging discrimination based on disability and sex regarding the refusal of public funding for in vitro fertilization (IVF) under O. Reg. 552.

In 2014, the parties settled the monetary claims, preserving the applicants' standing to seek non-monetary remedies.

In 2015, the impugned regulation was repealed and replaced with a new Fertility Program outside of OHIP.

The respondent moved to dismiss the 2009 applications for mootness.

The Tribunal found that while the applicants may have a live controversy regarding the new program, the amendments required to challenge it would constitute a new application.

The Tribunal concluded that the repeal of the 2009 regulation and the monetary settlement extinguished the live controversy of the original applications.

The Tribunal declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot applications, dismissing them and noting that challenges to the new program must be brought in a new application.

The respondent in a human rights application requested a summary hearing, an adjournment, and bifurcation of the hearing into liability and remedy phases.

The Tribunal had previously denied the summary hearing request and reaffirmed that denial.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, finding no basis for the respondent's concern regarding witness inconvenience.

However, the Tribunal granted the request to bifurcate the hearing, concluding that it would be more efficient to determine liability first given the contested facts and the anticipated volume of evidence regarding both liability and remedies.

The applicant, who identifies as pan-gendered, filed human rights applications alleging discrimination regarding the binary gender designation on driver's licenses and health cards.

The respondent requested disclosure of the applicant's medical records relating to gender identity assessment.

The Tribunal found that the requested medical records were arguably relevant to establishing the applicant's lived experience of a fluid gender identity and ordered their disclosure, subject to strict confidentiality and excluding surgical records.

The applicant, a transsexual male seeking to have his government-issued identity documents reflect his gender identity without reference to his birth-assigned gender, alleged discrimination in services based on gender identity and expression.

On the first day of the hearing, the parties jointly requested an eight-month adjournment to engage in community consultations and attempt to resolve the application.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, noting the broad-reaching implications of the public interest remedy sought.

The applicant, a transgender student, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on sex, gender identity, and gender expression by the respondent school board.

The respondent requested that allegations relating to events outside the one-year limitation period be dismissed.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine whether the untimely allegations constituted a 'series of incidents' under s. 34(1)(b) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the earlier incidents, which primarily involved interactions with other pupils and did not single out the applicant for differential treatment based on Code grounds, did not form a series of incidents with the timely allegations.

The untimely allegations were struck from the application.

The applicant filed an application alleging a breach of settlement regarding the payment of general damages without tax withholding.

A hearing was scheduled, and notice was delivered to the applicant.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing and did not communicate with the Tribunal.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, deeming it abandoned due to the applicant's failure to attend.

The applicant filed an application alleging that the respondent breached a Minutes of Settlement regarding her workplace accommodation for scent sensitivity.

The settlement required the applicant to be assigned to a specific building during school hours, with any changes to be discussed by a committee.

The respondent unilaterally reassigned the applicant to a different unit after she briefly left her post, without engaging the committee or initiating formal discipline.

The Tribunal found that the respondent breached the settlement by failing to follow the agreed-upon process for modifying the accommodation.

The applicant was awarded $3,000 in monetary compensation for the breach.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC), an intervenor in a case challenging the constitutionality of section 25(2.1) of the Human Rights Code, requested an extension of time to file an expert report in reply to the respondent's expert report on labour relations.

The respondent and the Attorney General opposed the request, citing prejudice and delay.

The Tribunal granted the extension, finding that the contents of the respondent's expert report could not have been fully anticipated and that procedural fairness favoured allowing the OHRC to provide rebuttal evidence regarding section 1 of the Charter.

The Tribunal concluded that the extension would not cause undue prejudice as the opposing parties would still have sufficient time to prepare for cross-examination.

The applicant alleged age discrimination under the Human Rights Code after his health benefits ended at age 65.

The Tribunal previously found that s. 25(2.1) of the Code is a complete defence unless it is found unconstitutional.

Two teachers' unions, OECTA and ETFO, sought intervenor status to address the constitutional issues.

The respondent and the Attorney General requested limitations on their participation, including a requirement to act jointly.

The Tribunal granted the unions full intervenor status without the requested limitations, finding that their perspectives on the administration of benefits and the impact on older workers would assist the Tribunal in this significant constitutional challenge.

The applicant filed an application alleging contravention of a settlement agreement by the corporate respondent.

Prior to the application, the respondent was ordered into receivership under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Courts of Justice Act.

The Tribunal found that the receivership order stayed all proceedings against the respondent, and the minutes of settlement did not constitute an exempt eligible financial contract.

The application was stayed pending leave of the Superior Court of Justice or consent of the receiver.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The union, OECTA, was granted intervenor status and sought to participate in the merits phase of the hearing to protect its reputation against allegations of collusion, despite taking no position on the merits.

The Tribunal denied the union's request to call evidence and cross-examine during the merits phase, finding it would likely cause delay and disruption and that the union's participation would not assist in determining the merits.

The union's participation was limited to the remedy phase.

The applicant alleged that the respondent school board breached the Human Rights Code on the basis of age when his health benefits ended at age 65.

The Tribunal previously found that s. 25(2.1) of the Code is a complete defence unless it is found to be unconstitutional.

The Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations (OCUFA) requested to intervene in the constitutional challenge.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that OCUFA has a significant interest in the issues and will make a special contribution to the case given its longstanding advocacy regarding mandatory retirement and the rights of faculty working past age 65.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging workplace discrimination based on disability more than five years after resigning from her employment.

The Tribunal considered whether the delay was incurred in good faith under section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code.

Finding that the applicant was capable of attending college and obtaining other employment during the delay period, and absent medical evidence of incapacity, the Tribunal concluded she had not established a good faith reason for the delay.

The application was dismissed as untimely.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination following his termination.

The respondent employer requested dismissal on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release in exchange for a severance package.

The applicant argued the release was void due to misrepresentation and because it contracted out of the Employment Standards Act.

The Tribunal found no evidence of misrepresentation and determined the severance package provided a greater benefit than statutory minimums.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The respondent CRR failed to file a Response despite a previous Interim Decision directing it to do so and warning of the consequences under Rule 5.5.

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.