Brenda Bowlby

The applicant, a former student, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on race after the college suspended him and contacted police regarding a fellow student's complaint.

The application was filed more than one year after the last alleged discriminatory act by the respondents.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the delay was incurred in good faith.

Finding that the applicant's explanations—ignorance of the law, being busy with school and criminal court, and mild depression—did not establish a good faith reason for the delay, the Tribunal dismissed the application as out of time.

The respondent in a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability requested an order for the production of the applicant's complete and unredacted medical records.

The applicant opposed, arguing the records were not relevant to understanding her functional limitations and raised privacy concerns.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding the medical documentation arguably relevant because the applicant had placed her medical condition at issue by seeking accommodation and claiming her condition worsened due to the respondent's conduct.

Disclosure was limited to respondent's counsel and their instructing client to address privacy concerns.

The applicant, a school custodian, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability, family status, marital status, and reprisal.

He claimed that a traumatic meeting with his supervisor caused a mental health disability, and that the respondent failed to accommodate him by requiring him to return to the school where the trauma occurred.

The Tribunal dismissed the substantive discrimination claims, finding insufficient medical evidence that the applicant's disability precluded him from returning to the original school.

However, the Tribunal found that the respondent violated the procedural duty to accommodate by failing to adequately consider and follow up on a psychiatrist's note recommending a different placement.

The applicant was awarded $3,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability after the respondent university failed to interview him for a position.

The respondent requested a summary hearing, arguing the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant may have been treated unfairly or felt suspicious due to past disputes, he failed to point to any evidence linking the decision not to interview him to his disability.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant's litigation guardian filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking an explanation for the respondent's possession of allegedly private documents, early disclosure of documents, and an extension of time to file a Reply.

The Tribunal dismissed the requests, finding it lacks jurisdiction to enforce privacy legislation or the Education Act, and that the request for early document production was premature under the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant requested a six-month adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates due to the death of her father, which required her to travel out of the country.

The respondent opposed the request.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment but found a six-month delay unnecessary, instead directing that the hearing be rescheduled to commence in October 2014.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal.

One of the individual respondents, a former employee of the respondent College, could not be served because the College no longer had his current address.

The applicant requested an order requiring the College to provide personal information it held regarding the former employee to assist in locating him.

The College consented to providing specific information (financial institution, address on record, references, and emergency contact) subject to a Tribunal order to comply with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Tribunal ordered the College to provide the consented information.

The respondent Humber College filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to remove several individual respondents, require the applicant to provide further particulars, and extend the time to file its Response.

The Tribunal granted the request to remove the individual respondents, noting that Humber accepted responsibility for their actions in the course of employment.

The Tribunal also ordered the applicant to provide further particulars regarding his allegations of discrimination and failure to accommodate his disability, and granted Humber a 30-day extension to file its Response after the particulars are provided.

The respondent hospital in a human rights application sought an order requiring the applicant to provide unrestricted consent for its counsel to speak with her treating physician and occupational health manager, and to disclose all medical records related to her disability.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to produce arguably relevant medical records from January 1, 2009 onwards.

However, applying common law principles regarding physician-patient confidentiality, the Tribunal refused to order unrestricted access to the treating physician, directing instead that any communication occur with simultaneous disclosure to the applicant.

In a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability, the respondent school board requested an order to exclude the applicant's treating physician from testifying or, alternatively, to compel production of his medical records and records from other community agencies.

The Tribunal permitted the applicant to call the physician as an expert witness, ordered the production of the physician's records for a specified timeframe, and scheduled a teleconference to hear oral submissions regarding the production of records from other agencies.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing, citing his inability to proceed after the Human Rights Legal Support Centre declined to represent him and asserting illness without medical documentation.

The respondent opposed the request, noting the age of the file and prejudice to its defence.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding no exceptional circumstances, as the applicant had ample time to retain counsel.

The Tribunal also ordered the applicant to comply with previous orders regarding the disclosure of medical records and the provision of witness and document lists, warning that failure to do so could result in the dismissal of the Application for abuse of process.

In an ongoing human rights proceeding, both parties filed Requests for Order.

The applicant sought to amend his Application to revive his original claims, add a personal respondent, and clarify remedies, as well as seeking further document production from the respondent and the union.

The respondent sought an order requiring the applicant to sign consents for the release of medical records and to produce original medical notes.

The Tribunal denied the applicant's request to revive his original Application and add a personal respondent, but allowed the amendment regarding remedies.

The Tribunal ordered the union to produce any relevant meeting notes, but denied further production from the respondent.

The Tribunal granted the respondent's request, ordering the applicant to sign medical consents and produce original medical notes for inspection.

The applicant filed a human rights application against her former employer and two union locals.

Following her termination, a grievance was filed and an arbitrator was selected.

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

All parties agreed the application should be deferred pending the grievance proceeding, but the union locals requested dismissal prior to deferral.

The Tribunal deferred the entire application, finding that the issue of whether there is no reasonable prospect of success against the union locals could be better assessed after the grievance proceeding concludes.

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 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 respondent requested that part of the human rights application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that a prior arbitration award had already dealt with the applicant's accommodation allegations for the fall 2010 semester.

The Tribunal found that the arbitration was a proceeding that appropriately dealt with the substance of those allegations, as the arbitrator had concluded the applicant did not have a disability requiring accommodation during that period.

The Tribunal ordered that the applicant could not rely on allegations from that period to establish a Code violation, leaving the admissibility of such evidence for context to the merits adjudicator.

The respondents requested the removal of four personal respondents from a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting the corporate respondent accepted responsibility for the employees' conduct and there was no compelling reason to keep them as parties.

The Tribunal also issued directions requiring the applicant to clarify whether she intends to testify, whether she will call the author of a psychoeducational report as an expert witness, and whether her mother will act as both her representative and a witness at the upcoming hearing.

The applicant filed three human rights applications alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of age, association, and reprisal, relating to numerous unsuccessful job applications with the respondent college.

The respondent requested an order declaring the applicant a vexatious litigant.

The Tribunal found that the applications raised the same allegations that had been previously dismissed and were an attempt to relitigate issues dating back to 1984.

The Tribunal dismissed the applications as an abuse of process and declared the applicant a vexatious litigant, requiring him to obtain leave before filing any future applications against the respondent.

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

A summary hearing was scheduled by teleconference, and notice was delivered to the applicant's representative.

Neither the applicant nor her representative attended the hearing.

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

The applicant, a student at the respondent college, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of age and ethnic origin, as well as reprisal.

The allegations arose after the applicant was disciplined for posting anti-Muslim comments on a course discussion board and for disruptive behaviour during a group assignment.

Following a hearing, the Tribunal assessed whether the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence lacked credibility and that the allegations were an attempt to enforce a perceived right to make anti-Muslim comments.

The Tribunal concluded there was no reasonable prospect of success on any ground and dismissed the application.