Brenda Bowlby

The respondent hospital sought an interim order requiring the applicant to consent to the disclosure of her personal health information to the respondent's counsel, and to provide the names of coworkers who allegedly wore scents or harassed her, prior to the respondent filing its Response to the human rights application.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for medical disclosure, finding no exceptional circumstances to depart from the usual rule that a respondent must file its Response before the exchange of arguably relevant documents.

However, the Tribunal granted the request for particulars, ordering the applicant to provide the names of the coworkers involved.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights applications after he failed to attend a scheduled telephone hearing.

The applicant claimed he attempted to connect to the conference call for three hours but was unsuccessful.

The respondent opposed the request, noting its own successful connection and the applicant's failure to contact the Tribunal.

The Tribunal found it appropriate to reconsider the dismissal, concluding that the applicant's failure to attend was likely not an intentional attempt to avoid the hearing.

The Tribunal directed the parties to provide written submissions on the substantive issues and the respondent's request to declare the applicant a vexatious litigant.

The applicants, two students with pes planus (flat feet), requested an interim remedy requiring the respondent school board to provide them with bus service to and from school.

They also requested to expedite the proceedings.

The Tribunal denied the request for an interim remedy, finding insufficient medical evidence to support the claim that they were unable to walk to school without pain or that the pain could not be alleviated through treatment.

The Tribunal also denied the request to expedite the proceedings and directed the applicants to provide more detailed medical information before requiring the respondent to file a full response.

The respondent school board requested an order dismissing aspects of the human rights application that were out of time.

The applicant alleged discriminatory treatment of his son, primarily relating to an event in November 2010, but also referenced events from several years prior.

The Tribunal found no sufficient temporal or thematic connection to constitute a 'series of incidents' under section 34(1)(b) of the Human Rights Code.

The allegations relating to events prior to September 2011 were dismissed as out of time.

The applicant filed three human rights applications alleging discrimination in employment based on age and association.

A hearing was scheduled to determine if the applications should be dismissed as an abuse of process or because another proceeding had dealt with the substance.

The applicant failed to attend the teleconference hearing, and the applications were dismissed as abandoned.

The respondent's request to declare the applicant a vexatious litigant was reserved.

After the hearing, the applicant emailed the Tribunal stating he could not connect to the teleconference.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to file a Request for Reconsideration to address his non-attendance.

The applicant alleged that the respondent school board reprised and discriminated against him by accessing and using his Ontario Student Record without consent to defend against a previous human rights application.

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

The Tribunal ruled that the respondent's use of the records in a legal proceeding was protected by absolute privilege, and there was no evidence linking the respondent's actions to the applicant's age or disability.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, association, and reprisal, culminating in his forced retirement.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed as untimely.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's retirement was the effect of an earlier decision to retire, and no discriminatory acts occurred within the one-year limitation period under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal further held that the applicant failed to provide a good faith explanation for the delay under section 34(2).

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested that the hearing be held outside Toronto to accommodate his physical disability, which the Tribunal granted.

The respondent school board brought a Request for an Order during Proceedings seeking production of documents related to the applicant's involvement with the Children's Aid Society.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to produce the requested documents, finding them arguably relevant to the allegations of discrimination and the relationship between the applicant, his child, his ex-partner, and the respondent.

The applicant filed a human rights application against his former employer and his union.

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

The applicant requested an adjournment, which was denied, but he still failed to attend the summary hearing.

The Tribunal proceeded in his absence and dismissed the application against the union as abandoned.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a prior decision that dismissed his employment discrimination application at a summary hearing for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant merely repeated his previous submissions and failed to establish any of the grounds for reconsideration under Rule 26.5, such as new evidence or a conflict with established jurisprudence.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant, a parent with multiple sclerosis, alleged that the respondent school board discriminated against her on the basis of disability by refusing to provide bussing for her children.

The children did not qualify for bussing under the respondent's neutral transportation policy due to their age and the proximity of their home to the school.

The Tribunal found no direct discrimination, as the policy was applied neutrally and disability was not a factor in the decision.

The Tribunal also found no constructive discrimination, as the applicant failed to demonstrate that the lack of bussing adversely impacted her because of her disability, given that other transportation options were available and her ability to get her children ready for school was not materially affected.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his application alleging age discrimination and reprisal in employment.

He argued that new evidence existed and that other factors outweighed the public interest in finality.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was merely reiterating positions from the summary hearing and seeking to go on a fishing expedition for evidence.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant, a parent of a student, alleged that the respondent school board discriminated against him on the basis of gender and disability.

The respondent requested early dismissal, arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because it provides educational services to students, not parents.

The Tribunal found that while some interactions between a parent and a school board may constitute a 'service' under section 1 of the Human Rights Code, allegations relating exclusively to the quality of educational services provided to the student, or interactions with third parties, do not.

The Application was dismissed in part, with the remaining allegations regarding direct interactions between the applicant and the respondent proceeding to a hearing.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of age, association with a person identified by a Code ground, and reprisal, claiming he was not interviewed for three positions at the respondent college.

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

The Tribunal found that historical allegations were outside its jurisdiction under s. 53(8) of the Code.

For the recent job applications, the applicant failed to provide any evidence linking the failure to obtain an interview to a protected ground or reprisal, relying only on his own assertions.

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

In a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, the respondent school board sought production of the applicant's medical records and consent to access the school psychologist's file and the applicant's Ontario Student Record (OSR).

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to produce the arguably relevant medical records.

The Tribunal also directed the applicant's next friend to consent to the respondent's use of the psychologist's file and the OSR, holding that it would be an abuse of process to rely on these materials while denying the respondent access to them.

Failure to provide consent would result in the dismissal of the application.

The applicant, a parent with a mobility disability, alleged discrimination because the respondent school board refused to provide bus transportation for her children, who lived too close to the school to qualify under the standard policy.

The respondent requested dismissal on the basis that transportation is a service provided to students, not parents, and thus the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that a service relationship exists between the school board and parents regarding transportation, noting the board's own policies contemplate parental requests for special transportation.

The Tribunal dismissed the respondent's jurisdictional objection and directed the applicant to provide submissions on how the policy adversely impacted her, given her husband already drove the children to school.

The complainant, a student with autism spectrum disorder, alleged that the school board discriminated against him by failing to adequately accommodate his disability-related needs in a regular classroom setting.

The allegations included failure to provide a continuous and competent Special Needs Assistant, delay in providing a dedicated computer, inadequate toileting support, and excessive time spent outside the classroom.

The Tribunal found that the school board made reasonable efforts to accommodate the complainant's needs, including providing one-on-one support, implementing a habit-training program, and offering training to staff.

The Tribunal concluded that the accommodations provided were reasonable and responsive to the complainant's needs, and dismissed the complaint.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in educational services.

In a Request for Order During Proceedings, the applicant sought to add his mother and two sisters as applicants.

The respondents opposed the request, arguing the allegations pertaining to the family members were outside the one-year limitation period under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the application was originally filed only on behalf of the applicant.

The Tribunal refused to add the mother and sisters as applicants, concluding their allegations did not form part of a series of incidents with the applicant's allegations, were out of time, and lacked a good faith explanation for the delay.

The Tribunal also directed that the application continue against a personal respondent who was on pregnancy leave.

The applicant, an elementary school student, alleged that the respondent school board's policies regarding pediculosis (head lice) discriminated against her on the basis of age and perceived disability.

The school board's policy required students with head lice to be removed from the classroom until treated, and involved head checks in elementary but not secondary schools.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that head lice is a common, easily treated ailment that does not constitute a disability under the Human Rights Code.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the differential treatment of elementary school students regarding head checks was based on the greater prevalence of lice in that age group and developmental differences, rather than stereotyping or prejudice, and therefore did not amount to age discrimination.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her application alleging racial discrimination in a nursing program's grade review process.

She argued that a fact-finding report from the Commission should have been provided and expressed disagreement with the Tribunal's findings.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant failed to meet the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 25.5 and was improperly attempting to re-argue her case.