Christopher Taucar

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing for medical reasons and a stay of the proceeding pending an application for judicial review.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, finding the brief medical note provided was insufficient and the applicant's doctor refused to participate in a conference call to provide further information.

The Tribunal also denied the stay request, applying the RJR-MacDonald test and finding that the judicial review application raised frivolous and vexatious allegations of bias, there would be no irreparable harm if the hearing proceeded, and the balance of convenience favoured proceeding expeditiously given the significant delays already incurred.

The applicant brought two human rights applications alleging discrimination and reprisal.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed several procedural issues.

The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's request for the adjudicator to recuse himself for bias, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Tribunal denied requests to consolidate the proceeding with a previously dismissed application or to defer it pending a Supreme Court leave application.

The Tribunal struck several paragraphs from the reprisal application as irrelevant, dismissed a 2011 reprisal allegation for delay, and permitted the applicant to amend her first application to add reprisal to certain existing allegations while denying amendments that sought to revive dismissed claims.

The applicant requested the consolidation of two human rights applications alleging discrimination and reprisal by the respondent university.

The respondent opposed consolidation and requested that certain paragraphs of the reprisal application be struck for irrelevance and repetition of previously dismissed allegations.

The Tribunal granted the consolidation request, finding it would serve adjudicative economy without prejudicing the respondents.

The Tribunal also granted the respondent's request to strike paragraphs 23 to 30 of the reprisal application, as they were irrelevant to the reprisal claims and re-raised previously dismissed allegations.

The applicant requested to reactivate two consolidated human rights applications after the conclusion of judicial review proceedings and the exhaustion of all appeals, including a refusal of leave by the Supreme Court of Canada.

The respondents did not file submissions.

The Tribunal found it appropriate to reactivate the applications and ordered them reactivated.

The applicant filed two human rights applications alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment.

The Tribunal considered whether to consolidate the applications and whether to defer them pending a related Judicial Review.

Finding significant overlap in facts, issues, and parties, the Tribunal ordered the applications consolidated.

Given the pending Judicial Review seeking similar remedies and raising identical facts, the Tribunal deferred the consolidated applications to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent results.