Celia Chandler

The applicant sought to reactivate her human rights application after it had been deferred pending a Superior Court proceeding.

She missed the 60-day deadline under Rule 14.4 to request reactivation following the conclusion of the civil proceeding.

The respondents sought to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal exercised its discretion to waive the strict application of the time limit, accepting the applicant's medical evidence that she was hospitalized and receiving treatment during the relevant period.

The application was reactivated.

The applicant filed an Application alleging a breach of a settlement agreement.

Shortly before the scheduled hearing, the applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to significantly amend the Application to include additional alleged breaches and new remedies.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that allowing the amendments so close to the hearing would be unfair to the respondent, would require another adjournment, and that the applicant failed to provide an adequate explanation for the delay in seeking the amendments.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend his human rights application to add potential witnesses and alter his proposed financial remedy.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding the amendments unnecessary.

The Tribunal noted that witness information should be provided pursuant to Rule 17 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, and arguments regarding financial remedies can be made at the hearing.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in housing and employment based on race, colour, place of origin, disability, family status, and receipt of public assistance.

The applicant alleged he was evicted and denied employment opportunities by the respondent housing co-operative for discriminatory reasons.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if a prima facie case was established.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case, as there was no apparent connection between the matters complained of and any prohibited ground of discrimination.

The application was dismissed.