Bruce Best

The employer brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings to dismiss the human rights application for delay, as it was filed approximately eight months past the one-year time limit under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued the delay was incurred in good faith due to severe physical and mental disabilities, including CFIDS, ADHD, and GAD, which caused significant cognitive dysfunction, compounded by living in poverty.

The Tribunal admitted the applicant's medical evidence over the employer's procedural objections.

The Tribunal found the applicant met the good faith test for the delay and that the employer failed to establish significant prejudice.

The employer's request to dismiss the application was denied.

The applicant, a former dispatcher at Lynx Trucking, alleged that the personal respondent, the owner of the company, discriminated against her on the basis of race, colour, ethnic origin, and family status.

The applicant claimed she was subjected to repeated racial slurs, verbal abuse, and a poisoned work environment, and that her termination was discriminatory.

The Tribunal found that the personal respondent repeatedly used highly offensive racial slurs and created a poisoned work environment.

The Tribunal also found that the applicant's termination was inextricably linked to the personal respondent's racist treatment of her, although the claim of discrimination based on family status was dismissed.

The respondents were ordered to pay $25,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and $6,750 for lost wages, and to implement a human rights and anti-harassment policy.

The applicant, a tenant and elected tenant representative in a social housing complex, alleged that the respondent housing corporation discriminated against him on the basis of race, ethnic origin, and disability.

He claimed he was treated as a subordinate, excluded from responsibilities, and ultimately removed from his position for discriminatory reasons.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant's evidence unreliable and preferring the respondent's evidence.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's removal as a tenant representative was due to his own inappropriate and disruptive behaviour, including an incident where he entered restricted staff offices without permission, rather than any discriminatory animus.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in accommodation on the basis of disability and receipt of public assistance after a failed attempt to purchase a co-ownership apartment unit.

The applicant sought an interim remedy granting her a right of first refusal to purchase any unit in the respondents' building, and requested that her name be anonymized.

The Tribunal granted the request to anonymize due to privacy and safety concerns related to stalking.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the request for an interim remedy, finding that while the application appeared to have merit, the balance of convenience did not favour the applicant, the requested order was overly broad, and the applicant had failed to take timely steps to mitigate her alleged harm.

The landlord appealed a decision of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal that dismissed its application for an above-guideline rent increase related to lobby renovations.

The Adjudicator had dismissed the claim due to missing schedules in the contract and concerns about a non-arms-length relationship between the landlord's agent and the contractor.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Adjudicator erred in law by relying on an irrelevant corporate relationship and breached procedural fairness by failing to consider the landlord's requests to file the missing documents.

The matter was remitted to a different adjudicator for rehearing.