Carolyn Johnston

The applicant, a police officer, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability, race, and reprisal against the Police Services Board, the Police Association, and a third-party disability management provider.

At a preliminary hearing, the Tribunal considered the applicant's requests to amend his application, the respondents' requests to dismiss certain allegations for delay and as having been dealt with in a prior proceeding, and the third-party provider's request to be removed as a respondent.

The Tribunal allowed some amendments but denied others due to delay, struck allegations previously dealt with by the OHRC, dismissed several historical allegations for delay as they did not form a series of incidents, and refused to remove the third-party provider as a respondent because its role in adjudicating sick leave and accommodation requests was inextricably linked to the applicant's employment.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging she was terminated because of her pregnancy.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance of the application was already dealt with by an employment standards officer who dismissed the applicant's reprisal claim.

The Tribunal noted the applicant had sought a review of the employment standards officer's decision at the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Tribunal held it was premature to consider dismissing the application under s. 45.1 while the other proceeding was still ongoing, and ordered the application deferred pending the conclusion of the employment standards proceeding.

The applicant alleged discrimination based on disability when he failed a driver's examination, claiming the respondents failed to accommodate him.

Respondent Plenary Group (Canada) Ltd. requested to be removed as a respondent, arguing Serco Canada Inc. was vicariously liable for the examiner's actions.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that at this preliminary stage, there was insufficient information about the corporate relationship between the respondents to determine liability, especially given allegations regarding inadequate accommodation policies.

The applicant sought reconsideration of an interim decision that dismissed parts of his human rights application for delay and abuse of process.

The applicant filed the request two days late, but the Tribunal granted an extension because the delay was incurred in good faith due to the applicant's disability.

On the merits of the reconsideration request, the Tribunal found that the applicant was merely attempting to re-argue issues already decided in the interim decision.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant failed to establish any of the grounds for reconsideration under the Tribunal's rules and denied the request.

In an interim decision, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario addressed the production of the applicant's psychiatric clinical notes.

The applicant objected to producing eight notes, claiming they were irrelevant or protected by common law privilege under the Supreme Court's decision in Ryan.

The Tribunal found the notes arguably relevant to the applicant's claim of acute stress and anxiety resulting from alleged workplace discrimination.

Applying the Ryan test, the Tribunal balanced the applicant's privacy interests with the respondents' right to disclosure, ordering the production of the notes with appropriate redactions for non-essential material concerning the litigation process.

The parties filed Requests for Order During Proceeding regarding the removal of the individual respondent and the production of various documents.

The Tribunal denied the request to remove the individual respondent, finding that her conduct was central to the applicant's reprisal allegations.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to produce her resume, OISE application, and mental health records from August 2010 to August 2011.

The respondents were ordered to produce the applicant's harassment complaint from the 2010/2011 school year.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination, failure to accommodate, and reprisal by the respondent school board.

The respondent sought to dismiss portions of the application on the basis of delay and abuse of process, arguing that the substance of the allegations had been resolved through a prior grievance settlement.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's attempt to litigate issues already addressed in the signed Minutes of Settlement constituted an abuse of process.

Furthermore, the Tribunal dismissed allegations predating September 2006 due to the applicant's failure to provide a good faith explanation for the delay.

The balance of the application, concerning accommodation requests made after September 2006, was permitted to proceed to a hearing on the merits.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be deferred pending the conclusion of an ongoing grievance and arbitration proceeding dealing with the same facts and allegations of Code discrimination.

The Ontario Nurses' Association (ONA) also requested intervenor status.

The Tribunal granted ONA intervenor status and deferred the application, finding that it would be most fair, just, and expeditious to avoid concurrent proceedings that could lead to inconsistent decisions, as the grievance arbitrator has jurisdiction to enforce the Code.

The defendants moved to strike several corporate defendants from a wrongful dismissal action on the basis that the statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action against them.

The plaintiff alleged she was employed by a group of related corporations operating collectively and that they wrongfully dismissed her and withheld personal property.

Applying the test for striking pleadings, the court held that the pleadings and incorporated documents sufficiently alleged a common employer relationship among the corporate defendants.

It was not plain and obvious that the claim against the additional defendants had no reasonable prospect of success.

The motion to strike was therefore dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discriminatory discipline and harassment on the basis of disability following her return from medical leave.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application because the applicant had also filed four workplace grievances regarding the same incidents of discipline.

Finding significant overlap in the subject matter and a risk of inconsistent findings of fact, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment on the basis of disability following her return from medical leave.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code or deferred pending the outcome of related union grievances.

The Tribunal granted the union intervenor status, denied the request to dismiss as no other proceeding had yet dealt with the substance of the application, and ordered the parties to provide further information regarding the status of the grievances before deciding on deferral.

The respondent employer brought a motion to dismiss the applicant's application for judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision on the basis of delay.

The applicant had delayed 26 months in filing his application and a further three months in perfecting it, without providing a cogent explanation.

The court found that the delay caused actual prejudice to the respondents, as a key witness had since been dismissed and another respondent had already undergone a full hearing on related issues.

The motion was granted and the application for judicial review was dismissed.