Christina Henderin

The respondents requested a summary hearing, the removal of an individual respondent, and a deferral to an ongoing Landlord and Tenant Board proceeding.

The Tribunal denied the summary hearing request and the deferral request, finding no substantial overlap with the LTB matter concerning rental arrears.

The Tribunal granted the request to remove the individual respondent, as the corporate respondent acknowledged liability for the individual's actions and there was no compelling reason to keep the individual as a party.

The applicant sought to reactivate his human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by his employer.

The respondents opposed reactivation and requested dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that a labour arbitrator had already dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal found that the arbitrator had explicitly addressed and dismissed all of the applicant's allegations of discrimination and reprisal in a lengthy award upholding his termination.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application, noting that the applicant could not relitigate the same issues simply because he was dissatisfied with how his union presented the case at arbitration.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging the respondent failed to accommodate her environmental sensitivities by not transferring her to a different unit and not using different cleaning solutions.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the issues were already resolved through a consent order at the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The Tribunal found that the LTB consent order constituted a proceeding that appropriately dealt with the substance of the accommodation allegations.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant's remaining allegations for having no reasonable prospect of success, as they lacked supporting facts and had no connection to the respondent.

The defendant landlord moved to set aside a noting in default, strike the statement of claim as frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process, and obtain a vexatious litigant order under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The plaintiff alleged illegal entry, theft, and property damage in her rental unit, but similar allegations had previously been litigated before the Landlord and Tenant Board, Small Claims Court, and unsuccessfully pursued on appeal.

The court held that the present action constituted a collateral attack and impermissible re‑litigation of issues already determined.

The noting in default was set aside, the statement of claim was struck without leave to amend, and the plaintiff was declared a vexatious litigant with respect to future proceedings against the landlord without leave of the court.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race and disability, claiming the respondent failed to accommodate his workplace injury and terminated his employment.

The applicant's union had previously grieved the termination, and an arbitrator upheld the termination, explicitly dismissing the claims of discrimination.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the arbitration award appropriately dealt with the substance of the application and dismissed it to prevent duplicative litigation.

The applicant, a 53-year-old who previously worked for the respondent through a third-party contractor, alleged age discrimination after failing to obtain an interview for a custodial maintenance position.

The respondent received over 200 applications and hired 32 individuals, including some younger and at least one older than the applicant.

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

Finding no evidence beyond speculation to link the failure to hire to the applicant's age, and noting that the traditional prima facie case test is not rigidly applied at the summary hearing stage, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The applicant sought to reactivate his human rights application following the conclusion of a union grievance arbitration regarding his termination.

The respondent opposed, arguing the application should be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code or as an abuse of process because the arbitration award dealt with the substance of the matter.

The Tribunal granted the reactivation request as it was filed within the 60-day time limit, but ordered a preliminary hearing to hear oral submissions on whether the application should be dismissed due to the prior arbitration.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment by her former supervisor during 2001-2002.

The corporate respondent requested the application be dismissed because the applicant had previously filed a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission in 2002 based on the same facts, which the Commission declined to deal with due to an ongoing grievance arbitration.

The Tribunal found that the subject-matter of the application was the same as the prior complaint and dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction under section 53(8) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race and disability by his employer, TCHC, and his union.

The respondents raised preliminary objections regarding delay, as many of the allegations occurred more than one year before the application was filed.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay and did not establish that the delay was incurred in good faith.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed all allegations against TCHC and the individual employer respondent, as well as the pre-December 2007 allegations against the union.

The application was permitted to continue against the union regarding the remaining timely allegations.