David Patacairk

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in services, which was deferred pending the outcome of related provincial offences proceedings.

The applicant filed a request to reactivate the application seven months after the conclusion of the provincial proceedings, well beyond the 60-day time limit prescribed by Rule 14.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's explanation for the delay—that he was dealing with personal issues and simply forgot—did not constitute a good faith reason to extend the time limit.

The request to reactivate was denied and the application was dismissed.

The applicant, a highly educated former senior police officer from Pakistan, applied for an Evaluation and Research Coordinator position with the respondent police service.

He was interviewed but was not the successful candidate.

He alleged discrimination on several grounds, arguing he was more qualified and that his accent negatively impacted his scores.

The Tribunal found that while one panel member gave the applicant a lower score due to difficulty understanding his accent, this did not affect the overall outcome of the competition.

The Tribunal concluded that the successful candidate performed objectively better in the interview and presentation, and dismissed the application as no discriminatory factor played a role in the hiring decision.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on race, colour, and disability against the City of Ottawa and a city councillor regarding a parking variance dispute.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations of disability discrimination and discrimination related to a garbage warning, finding no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal allowed an amendment clarifying an $800 fine and directed the respondents to file a response to the remaining allegations of racial discrimination.

The applicant, a medical marijuana user, alleged that the Mayor of Ottawa discriminated against him by publicly asking medical marijuana users not to expose others to second-hand smoke in establishments.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that even if the Mayor's comments to the media constituted a 'service' under the Human Rights Code, the comments were not discriminatory.

The Mayor merely appealed to users not to expose others to second-hand smoke, which does not impose a disadvantage or violate the Code.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding sought an interim order for the production of various documents from the respondent City of Ottawa and third-party police records.

The Tribunal ordered the third-party Ottawa Police Service to produce witness statements and notes related to the specific incident, as they were arguably relevant and the police consented.

However, the Tribunal denied the applicant's request for anonymized copies of all Trespass to Property Notices issued by the respondent over the past 3 to 5 years, finding the request overly broad, speculative, and a fishing expedition.

The scheduled hearing dates were converted to mediation/adjudication due to outstanding disclosure issues.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to goods, services, and facilities because of disability.

The incidents in question occurred more than one year prior to the filing of the application.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed for delay.

The applicant argued that an unnamed Tribunal employee had advised her that her application was timely.

The Tribunal found this explanation insufficient to establish a good faith reason for the delay, noting that Tribunal staff do not provide legal advice.

The application was dismissed for delay.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and creed during his brother's arrest and questioning by the respondents.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the outcome of concurrent criminal proceedings against the claimant.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that deferral was the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed given the factual overlap and the potential for conflicting findings.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of race and ethnic origin, claiming the respondent police service refused to take his criminal complaints as part of a conspiracy to protect a hate group.

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

Finding that the applicant's allegations were bald assertions and entirely speculative, with no evidence linking the respondent's actions to a Code ground, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The applicant, a young Black man of Haitian ethnicity, alleged he was racially profiled when an Ottawa police officer stopped him for allegedly using a cellphone while driving.

The applicant denied holding his phone and claimed the stop was a pretext based on racial stereotypes.

The Tribunal found that while the officer may have been mistaken about the cellphone, there was insufficient evidence to infer that the applicant's race, colour, ethnic origin, or age were factors in the decision to stop him or in his treatment during the interaction.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a person with a disability, alleged discrimination with respect to housing because the respondent's subsidized housing program required her to move to a new unit, which she claimed she could not do due to her disability.

The respondent sought to dismiss the application at a preliminary hearing on the grounds of timeliness and having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found the application was filed in time, as a 2014 request for an 'in situ' subsidy constituted a new incident.

The Tribunal also declined to dismiss the application for no reasonable prospect of success, finding an arguable case of constructive discrimination under section 11 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant, a bus operator, filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability against the respondent, OC Transpo.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed on the basis that it is a federally regulated undertaking and therefore falls outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The Tribunal agreed, finding it plain and obvious that OC Transpo is a federal undertaking.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled two-day hearing.

After waiting 30 minutes, the adjudicator concluded that the applicant had abandoned the application.

The application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant, a bus driver for OC Transpo, filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability regarding his attempts to secure accommodation through the City of Ottawa's priority placement program.

The respondent challenged the Tribunal's jurisdiction, arguing that OC Transpo is a federal undertaking and its labour relations are governed by federal legislation.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's rights to priority placement were derived from his collective agreement and his ongoing status as an OC Transpo employee.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded it lacked jurisdiction over the subject-matter and dismissed the application.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because he was in custody, denied bail, and had a conflicting criminal court appearance.

The respondents opposed the request and sought to have the application dismissed as abandoned, arguing the applicant's inability to attend resulted from his own misconduct.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding the circumstances exceptional and noting there was no evidence the applicant was abusing the Tribunal's process.

The applicant requested to amend his human rights application to include a public interest remedy, specifically human rights training and a policy concerning racial profiling for the officers involved and the Direct Action Response Team (DART) unit.

The respondents opposed the amendment, arguing it was late and would unduly lengthen the hearing.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, finding that the amendment would not substantially lengthen the hearing as the allegations focused on events limited in time and place.

The Tribunal also noted that the issue of document production had been resolved.

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to dismiss the application on the basis that it was outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant alleged discrimination with respect to employment because of reprisal and disability, claiming excessive monitoring by the personal respondent related to his sick leave.

The Tribunal found that it was not plain and obvious that the application was outside its jurisdiction and dismissed the respondents' request.

The applicant in a human rights complaint alleging racial profiling by a police officer brought a request for an order to add the Ottawa Police Service, the former Chief of Police, and the former Deputy Chief as respondents.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the Ottawa Police Service is not a legal entity, the Application contained no allegations against the proposed individual respondents, and their addition was not necessary to implement any potential remedies.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal during his stay at a municipal emergency housing shelter.

He claimed his expulsion following an altercation was discriminatory because his behaviour was affected by medication for his back condition, and that his subsequent transfer to a smaller room upon readmission was reprisal for complaining to the mayor's office.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no evidence that the shelter was aware of the medication or that it caused the behaviour.

The Tribunal also accepted the respondent's non-discriminatory explanation that the room transfer was necessary to accommodate a new family with special needs, and found that the shelter had adequately accommodated the applicant's disability by providing a grab bar and an orthopedic bed.

The applicant, a female street performer, alleged that the respondent city's by-law prohibiting voice amplification discriminated against her on the basis of sex, claiming women are physiologically less able to project their voices than men.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that it had jurisdiction to determine if a by-law has a discriminatory effect and that the applicant had sufficiently alleged discrimination with respect to services.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application and directed it to proceed, ordering the applicant to provide her expert evidence regarding voice projection in advance.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on multiple grounds after being unsuccessful in a competition for an Evaluation and Research Coordinator position.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed notice to the incumbent and the applicant's requests for document production.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to provide formal notice to the incumbent, as the applicant sought instatement to the position.

The Tribunal denied the applicant's request for records of candidates who were not interviewed, finding them irrelevant, but ordered the production of available demographic data for the applicant pool and any policies governing the recruitment process.