Bradley Jay Troup

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and age, as well as reprisal, regarding his housing.

The respondent brought a preliminary issue seeking dismissal under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matters were already dealt with by the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB).

The Tribunal found that the applicant had raised substantially similar allegations, including failure to accommodate a request for a designated handicap parking spot and harassment, at a prior LTB hearing.

Concluding that the substance of the application had been appropriately dealt with by the LTB, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging his employment was terminated due to his ongoing medical difficulties and absences resulting from a workplace injury.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the resolution of the applicant's WSIB claim.

The applicant opposed deferral, noting his WSIB claim had already been denied.

The respondent argued for deferral until the WSIB appeal period expired.

The Tribunal declined to defer the application, finding it unfair to do so when the WSIB claim was decided and there was no evidence of an appeal.

The applicant filed an application alleging that the respondent police service and its officers discriminated against him on the basis of race, colour, place of origin, ethnic origin, and age by failing to adequately investigate his complaints.

The applicant believed he was under surveillance by national security agencies and that his home was being tampered with.

Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no evidence to connect the respondents' conduct to any prohibited grounds under the Code.

The applicant, a store manager, alleged that her employment was terminated because of her pregnancy and need for accommodation (seated breaks).

The respondents maintained she was terminated for cause due to chronic tardiness and a serious breach of store policy (leaving a sales associate alone in the store), following a prior final written warning for falsifying time records.

The Tribunal found no evidence that the termination was related to her pregnancy or accommodation request, which had been promptly granted.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a transgender woman, sought to withdraw her human rights application alleging discrimination by a women's-only fitness facility.

The respondents requested costs or a monetary award for abuse of process, citing the stigma and expense of defending the claim.

The Tribunal accepted the withdrawal and dismissed the request for costs, finding it lacked statutory authority to award costs under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act because it had not enacted the requisite rules.

The Tribunal also found no abuse of process by the applicant.

In a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex or sexual orientation regarding admission to a women's only fitness facility, the respondents sought production of various documents and particulars.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant, a pre-operative transsexual at the time of the incident, to produce medical records relating to her transsexual surgery and treating physician.

The Tribunal dismissed the respondents' requests for documents relating to the bona fides of the applicant's membership application, counselling notes, restraining orders, and further particulars, finding them not arguably relevant to the issues of liability or necessary for a fair hearing.

Following an oral decision allowing the appeal, the successful appellant sought its costs at trial, which it had requested in its written materials but omitted from its oral costs submissions.

The Court of Appeal issued a supplementary endorsement granting the appellant its costs at trial, to be assessed if not agreed.

The applicant, a transgender woman, alleged discrimination in the provision of services on the basis of sex after being denied admission to a women-only fitness facility.

The respondents filed a Notice of Constitutional Question, arguing that a finding of discrimination would violate women's freedom of association under section 2(d) of the Charter, and that the human rights process violated the personal respondent's rights under sections 7 and 11(b) of the Charter.

The respondents sought to have these constitutional issues determined before the hearing on the merits.

The Tribunal ordered that the section 7 and 11(b) arguments be determined via written submissions during an adjournment necessitated by the applicant's health, while the section 2(d) argument would be dealt with at the hearing on the merits.

The respondent was awarded damages at trial for breach of contract after the trial judge found he had accepted an unconditional offer for an early retirement severance package.

The appellant appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge erred in construing the severance plan documents as an unconditional offer.

The Court held that an objective reasonable person in the respondent's position would not have understood the documents to make an unconditional offer, especially since the respondent knew he was being replaced and the program was for workforce reduction.

The action was dismissed.