David Patacairk

The respondents in a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability requested an interim order for the production of the applicant's medical records and OHIP summary, as well as an extension of time for document production.

The Tribunal ordered the production of medical records related to the claimed disabilities for the relevant period, finding them arguably relevant to the issue of accommodation and remedy.

The Tribunal denied the request for the OHIP summary as unnecessarily duplicative and overly broad.

The request for an extension of time was granted on consent.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to services based on ancestry, ethnic origin, and age, as well as reprisal, primarily related to property and tax disputes with the respondent municipality.

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

Finding that the applicant had no evidence to link the respondents' alleged conduct to any Code-protected grounds or to reprisal, the Tribunal dismissed the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision upholding the termination of an employee who purchased marijuana while on duty in a City vehicle.

The union alleged the employee was disabled due to marijuana addiction and required accommodation under the Human Rights Code.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's conclusion that the union failed to prove a disability on a balance of probabilities was reasonable, largely due to the employee's lack of credibility and uncorroborated evidence.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability against the City of Ottawa, relating to his placement on a Priority Placement Program after being employed as a bus driver with OC Transpo.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, arguing OC Transpo is a federally-regulated enterprise.

The applicant's union requested intervenor status.

The Tribunal granted the union intervenor status and directed that a teleconference hearing be scheduled to hear oral submissions on the preliminary issues of jurisdiction and document production.

The applicant, a police officer, filed a human rights application alleging sex discrimination dating back to 2002, including allegations related to maternity leaves taken after 2005.

The respondent requested dismissal of the pre-2005 allegations as out of time, and dismissal of other allegations on the basis that they were appropriately dealt with in grievance proceedings.

The Tribunal found that the pre-2005 allegations were not part of a series of incidents with the post-2005 allegations and dismissed them as out of time.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application under section 45.1, finding the grievances did not appropriately deal with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal also granted the applicant's request to amend the application to include recent allegations of discrimination and reprisal.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to re-activate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of his provincial offences proceeding for a speeding ticket.

The applicant argued that re-activation was warranted because the Ontario Court of Justice had adjourned the provincial offences proceeding pending the human rights application.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was attempting to re-litigate the original deferral decision and denied the request to re-activate, noting that the reasons for deferral remained germane.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on race and related grounds after being stopped by police for allegedly speeding.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred until the conclusion of the applicant's ongoing provincial offences proceeding regarding the speeding ticket.

The Tribunal granted the deferral, finding significant overlap between the issues before the court and the Tribunal, to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the applicant's human rights application pending the outcome of a recently filed grievance.

The Tribunal reviewed the subject matter of both proceedings and found no overlap in the facts.

The grievance concerned a denial of a temporary assignment based on marital status, whereas the application alleged discrimination based on sex, marital, and family status related to a different temporary position and maternity leaves.

The request for deferral was denied, and directions were given for mediation or a preliminary hearing.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to services because of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, citizenship, ethnic origin, and association.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability, receipt of public assistance, and reprisal while living at a city-administered family shelter.

The corporate respondent, the City of Ottawa, requested the removal of four personal respondents (city staff).

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal granted the request, finding no compelling reason to continue proceedings against the individuals since the City accepted responsibility for defending the allegations.

The Tribunal also noted the applicant's failure to file an amended Application as previously directed, warning that this could limit his ability to present evidence at the hearing, and narrowed the grounds to disability and reprisal.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and race regarding the seizure of his firearms and revocation of his license.

The application was filed beyond the one-year limitation period under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued the delay was in good faith because he only discovered the discriminatory motive during a judicial review hearing.

The Tribunal found that even if the doctrine of discoverability applied, the applicant waited almost another year after the hearing to file his application.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to act with due diligence, the delay was not incurred in good faith under section 34(2), and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability and race after his hunting rifles were retained and his firearms license was revoked.

The respondents raised a preliminary objection that the application was filed outside the one-year time limit under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued that the continued retention of his rifles constituted a continuing contravention of the Code.

The Tribunal held that the retention of the firearms was a single incident with continuing effects, not a series of incidents, and therefore the application was untimely.

The Tribunal directed the parties to provide written submissions on whether the delay was incurred in good faith to determine if an extension of the time limit should be granted.

In a decision on remedy following a finding of liability, the Tribunal addressed calculation issues regarding the applicant's wage loss and pension.

The Tribunal found it was not functus officio on the calculation of the tax gross-up and deemed mitigation, as these were not previously disputed.

The Tribunal held that the deemed mitigation deduction should be based on the applicant's regular 35-hour work week rather than a 40-hour week.

The issue of overtime entitlement was dismissed as previously determined.

The Tribunal remained seized of the outstanding pension contribution issues.

The applicant, a 40-year-old candidate for a probationary firefighter position, alleged that the respondent discriminated against him based on age during the hiring process.

He claimed the points system favoured younger candidates, the interview panel scored him poorly due to his age, and the requirement to provide a birth certificate and driver's license prior to the interview improperly classified him by age.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations regarding the points system and the hiring decision, finding no evidence of age discrimination.

However, the Tribunal found that the respondent violated s. 23(2) of the Human Rights Code by requiring documents that disclosed the applicant's age prior to a conditional offer of employment.

The Tribunal declined to award monetary damages but ordered the respondent to cease requesting documents with Code ground identifiers during the application and interview process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in accommodation and services on the basis of race, colour, disability, receipt of public assistance, and reprisal.

He alleged that the Social Housing Registry of Ottawa (SHRO) and Ottawa Community Housing Corporation (OCHC) gave priority to immigrants over Canadians and failed to accommodate his disability.

He also alleged discriminatory treatment and reprisal by staff at the Carling Family Shelter.

Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the allegations against SHRO, OCHC, and an OCHC manager, finding no reasonable prospect of success as priority is given based on life-threatening illness or domestic violence, not race or immigration status.

The Tribunal allowed the allegations against the City of Ottawa and shelter staff to proceed, directing the applicant to file an amended application with further particulars.

Following a finding that the respondent employer failed to accommodate the applicant's return to work after an injury, the Tribunal determined the appropriate remedies.

The Tribunal awarded lost wages from the date the applicant should have been returned to work until his retirement date, deducting WSIA benefits received during that period.

Claims for lost overtime were dismissed as speculative, while agreed-upon sick leave gratuities were awarded.

The Tribunal also awarded $15,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, noting the emotional impact of effectively losing a 16-year career due to the respondent's discriminatory conduct.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on marital and family status.

The respondent sought early dismissal, arguing the claims were barred by minutes of settlement and a release from a prior grievance.

At the preliminary hearing, the applicant withdrew the allegations covered by the settlement and requested to amend her application to include new allegations of discrimination arising after the settlement.

The Tribunal allowed the amendment and directed the application to proceed solely on the new allegations.

The respondent filed a Request for Order during Proceedings seeking to dismiss the application under section 53(8) of the Human Rights Code, arguing the subject-matter was the same as a 1994 complaint filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

The Tribunal found that while the current allegations shared a broad theme of workplace racism, they related to events that occurred after the Commission disposed of the original complaint in 1997.

The request to dismiss was denied and the application was permitted to proceed.

The applicant filed an application under section 53(5) of the Human Rights Code.

Following an interim decision that dismissed several allegations, a preliminary hearing was held to address the remaining issues.

During the hearing, the parties agreed to an order dismissing the application and consolidating any outstanding section 34 applications.

The Tribunal dismissed the application on consent.

The applicant, a Fire Prevention Officer, suffered a workplace injury resulting in chronic pain syndrome.

He sought to return to his pre-injury position with accommodations, specifically the removal of the investigation duties, or to be placed in a dispatcher position.

The respondent employer refused, relying on outdated WSIB medical restrictions and arguing that removing the investigation duties would alter the fundamental nature of the position and cause undue hardship.

The Tribunal found that the employer failed to consider more recent functional abilities evaluations and medical evidence which indicated the applicant could perform the inspection and public education duties.

The Tribunal concluded that the employer failed to establish that accommodating the applicant by removing the investigation duties or placing him in the dispatcher position would impose undue hardship.

The application was allowed on the issue of liability, with remedy deferred.