Carol S. VandenHoek

The applicant, a person with a disability, alleged that the respondent Town discriminated against him by requiring a railing next to his hot tub, which would impede his access to the deck in a medical emergency, and through discriminatory treatment by Town officials.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and found that neither the Town by-laws nor the Building Code required a railing for the deck's elevation change.

Furthermore, communications from Town officials merely advised the applicant of compliance options and did not support a claim of discriminatory treatment.

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

The plaintiff brought an unsuccessful summary judgment motion in a wrongful dismissal action.

The parties made written submissions on costs.

The defendant sought costs of $88,332.37 payable immediately, while the plaintiff argued costs should be reserved to the trial judge.

The court held that because the plaintiff was unemployed and the motion materials would be useful at trial, ordering immediate payment of significant costs would impede access to justice.

Costs of the motion were reserved to the trial judge.

The plaintiff, a 66-year-old labourer with over 12 years of service, was terminated purportedly for cause after being arrested for off-duty criminal charges.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment for wrongful dismissal.

The court found that the employer failed to establish just cause, as the criminal charges were unrelated to the workplace, there was no evidence of reputational harm, and the allegations of dishonesty and cumulative discipline were unfounded.

The court awarded the plaintiff 10 months' reasonable notice.

The defendants' cross-motion to dismiss the claims against the individual manager was granted, as the manager acted within the scope of his employment.

The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination in employment.

The respondent requested dismissal on the basis that it is a federally-regulated inter-provincial transportation business, and therefore outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The Tribunal agreed, noting a previous decision confirming the respondent's federal status, and dismissed the Application for lack of jurisdiction.

The respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking an order to compel the applicant to produce all arguably relevant documents in accordance with Rule 16.1 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting the importance of disclosure for a fair and timely hearing.

The applicant was ordered to comply within 7 days, failing which the Application could be dismissed as abandoned or the applicant could be barred from calling witnesses.

The respondent requested the early dismissal of a human rights application alleging discrimination regarding inaccessible premises.

The respondent argued the application should be dismissed under section 53(8) of the Human Rights Code because the applicant had pursued similar allegations against other businesses.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that section 53(8) only applies where a previous complaint was filed against the same respondent or a related entity, which was not the case here.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of record of offences.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction noting that the applicant had answered 'No' to whether he was discriminated against because of a conviction.

The applicant's submissions confirmed that his termination was unrelated to a conviction for an offence under federal or provincial law, and he argued the Tribunal should protect individuals who do not fall into specific categories.

The Tribunal dismissed the application at a preliminary stage, finding it plain and obvious that the allegations did not fall within the prohibited grounds of the Human Rights Code and were therefore outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming she was unable to return to work after witnessing a workplace assault due to the respondents' failure to address the poisoned work environment.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant was attempting to use the duty to accommodate to force the respondents to address general workplace harassment issues that do not fall under the Human Rights Code.

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

The applicant, a former car sales representative, alleged that she was sexually harassed and discriminated against by her manager on the basis of sex, marital status, and association, and that she was subjected to reprisal after complaining.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's evidence lacked credibility and was unsupported by other witnesses.

The Tribunal concluded that the employer's actions, including setting sales targets, were a legitimate response to the applicant's poor sales performance and were untainted by discriminatory considerations.

The application was dismissed.

The appellants appealed an order making their three-year-old daughter a Crown ward without access for the purpose of adoption.

They sought to reverse the decision based on fresh evidence of the mother's progress in developing parenting skills and her ability to care for her youngest child in Quebec.

The Court of Appeal admitted the fresh evidence but dismissed the appeal, finding that the child's best interests required continuity of care in her current foster placement, where she was thriving and had developed strong bonds.