Andrea Denovan

The respondents requested that the human rights applications be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code on the basis that the applicants' prior public complaints under the Police Services Act appropriately dealt with the substance of the applications.

The Tribunal considered the Supreme Court of Canada's decisions in Figliola and Penner.

The Tribunal held that section 45.1 should not be interpreted to bar a Code application where doing so would result in an affront to basic principles of fairness.

Given the lack of personal remedies in the police disciplinary process and the broader policy implications, the Tribunal found it would be unfair to preclude the applicants from pursuing their human rights claims.

The respondents' requests to dismiss the applications were denied, and the applications were allowed to proceed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging racial profiling by police during a search and subsequent criminal charges.

The respondents requested dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance of the application was appropriately dealt with because the applicant pleaded guilty to a lesser criminal charge.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the criminal proceedings only determined whether an offence was committed and did not address the human rights allegations of racial profiling.

Certain untimely allegations were dismissed on consent.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of race, colour, place of origin, and ethnic origin by a Justice of the Peace and court officials.

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

The applicant alleged that white lawyers received adjournments while he did not, that a confidential directive instructed court officials to discriminate, and that he was improperly denied an audio recording of his hearing.

The Tribunal found the applicant had no evidence to support his allegations and dismissed the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision regarding waste disposal fees charged by the City of Toronto.

The appellant failed to compact all its waste as required by the municipal bylaw, and the City charged the compacted rate for the uncompacted waste.

The appellant argued the General Manager acted outside his authority and performed a legislative function.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the General Manager was properly carrying out an administrative function necessary for the proper administration of the waste management program.

The court amended the trial costs award on consent.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to employment and housing on the basis of race, colour, and record of offences by the respondent, Ontario Works.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to point to any evidence linking the respondent's alleged actions to the cited grounds of discrimination.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and ethnic origin after her vehicle was ticketed and towed.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application against the Toronto Police Services Board had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found no reasonable prospect that the applicant could establish the decision to tow her car was discriminatory, as the applicable by-law does not exempt vehicles with disabled parking permits from being towed when impeding traffic, and there was no evidence linking the officer's actions to her ethnic origin.

The application against the Police Services Board was dismissed.

The applicant was directed to advise the Tribunal on how she intends to proceed against the towing company, which is in receivership.

In an ongoing expedited hearing regarding alleged discrimination in housing accommodation based on environmental sensitivities, the self-represented applicant sought to call a late witness.

The respondents objected, citing lack of particulars and prejudice.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the witness statement was vague, lacked supporting documentation, and would cause procedural unfairness and prejudice to the respondents by unduly lengthening the hearing and introducing potentially irrelevant similar fact evidence.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding requested to record the hearing to accommodate her learning disability.

The respondents objected and alternatively sought restrictions on the recording's use.

The respondents also requested that the hearing be bifurcated between liability and remedy.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to record the hearing using the Tribunal's equipment, subject to strict confidentiality and usage restrictions.

The Tribunal also ordered that the hearing be bifurcated with respect to liability and the public interest remedies sought by the applicant.

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

The applicant failed to attend the teleconference hearing despite receiving notice.

In the absence of the applicant or any explanation for his failure to attend, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant alleged discrimination in housing on the basis of ancestry, ethnic origin, and place of origin after being advised that a seniors' residence on his social housing waiting list was restricting access to individuals of Greek origin.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application based on the exemption in section 18 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant also raised a Charter challenge.

The Tribunal held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the stand-alone Charter challenge.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the residence met the three-part test under section 18 of the Code as a philanthropic organization primarily engaged in serving the interests of persons of Greek origin.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that the respondent municipality discriminated against him based on race by failing to enforce parking by-laws against his White neighbour.

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

The Tribunal found that beyond general allegations of unfairness and pointing out the different races of the neighbours, the applicant had no evidence to link the respondent's alleged inaction to his race.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on multiple grounds against the respondent.

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

The applicant alleged his belongings were stolen, he was reported to the police, and he caught pneumonia, but failed to link these events to the respondent or any prohibited grounds of discrimination.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of race, colour, place of origin, citizenship, and ethnic origin by police officers and jail wardens following his arrest for domestic assault.

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

The applicant's only evidence of discrimination was a police officer's notebook entry describing suspects in an unrelated incident as 'pakistani/indian'.

The Tribunal found this insufficient to link the respondents' actions to the alleged grounds and dismissed the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

During a hearing before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, the respondents sought to cross-examine the complainant on his past criminal convictions for assault and theft, as well as a prior judicial finding regarding his credibility.

The Tribunal disallowed the questions, finding that the potential prejudicial effect of admitting such evidence outweighed its minimal probative value.

The Tribunal noted that evidence of past assault convictions could improperly influence the assessment of the complainant's propensity for violence, while past theft convictions and a 13-year-old credibility finding in a different context would be of little assistance in assessing credibility in the current proceeding.

The applicant filed a human rights application naming "Officer Sunny Day" as a respondent.

The respondents failed to respond on behalf of this officer, advising the Tribunal that no such officer existed, despite it being clear that the intended respondent was Detective Robin Dey (badge #1099).

The Tribunal held that it is overly technical and inconsistent with the fair and expeditious resolution of applications for a respondent to fail to respond because of a misnomer.

The Tribunal ordered the misnamed respondent to file a response and directed respondents' counsel to circulate the decision to lawyers who regularly work on police human rights applications.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the Toronto Police Services Board and Toronto Police Services.

The respondents requested an extension of time to file their response, arguing that the identity of the proper respondents needed to be clarified first, and alternatively, that counsel required more time to review documents.

The Tribunal rejected the request based on the naming of the respondents, noting it was inconsistent with previous clear rulings involving the same parties.

However, the Tribunal granted an extension to April 29, 2011, to allow counsel sufficient time to review documents and consult individuals.

The respondents in a human rights proceeding requested an order for particulars of the applicant's requested remedies, which included $150,000 in monetary damages.

After the applicant provided further particulars citing medical issues and a work-related accident, the respondents sought production of his medical and employment records.

The Tribunal deferred ruling on the production request, ordering that the applicant first give evidence on remedies and be cross-examined, after which submissions on production would be heard.

The applicant, an African Canadian relief letter carrier, alleged that a police officer discriminated against him on the basis of race and colour when he was stopped and questioned while delivering mail in an affluent neighbourhood.

The Tribunal found that the officer's decision to place the applicant under surveillance, stop him, and make subsequent inquiries was influenced by the applicant's colour, rather than any unusual behaviour.

The Tribunal concluded that the officer breached the applicant's right to equal treatment with respect to services without discrimination on the basis of colour, contrary to sections 1 and 9 of the Human Rights Code.

The hearing was bifurcated, with remedy and the liability of the other respondents to be determined at a later date.

The respondent Toronto Police Services Board requested a stay, deferral, or adjournment of a scheduled Case Resolution Conference pending the outcome of a judicial review in a separate matter (King v. Toronto Police Services Board) concerning the Board's liability for the actions of individual police officers.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the balance of convenience strongly favoured proceeding with the hearing without further delay, and noted the Board's unreasonable delay in raising the request.

The City of Toronto appealed a decision declaring its amending by-law unlawful.

The by-law purported to retroactively and prospectively require the municipal pension plan to pay the City's internal administrative costs out of the pension fund.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the pension plan constituted a true trust in favour of the employees.

The court found that the City did not reserve a power of revocation, and a general power of amendment does not include the power to revoke.

Therefore, the by-law constituted an unlawful partial revocation and breach of trust.