David Patacairk

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of colour and disability, claiming he was denied a retirement badge and a part-time background investigator position.

The Tribunal scheduled a summary hearing by teleconference, which the applicant failed to attend.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned due to the applicant's non-attendance.

Alternatively, the Tribunal dismissed the application on the merits, finding no reasonable prospect of success as the allegations were based on unsupported assumptions and speculation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that the respondents discriminated against her on the basis of disability in their administration of her social assistance benefits, which she claimed led to her eviction.

The respondents brought a request for an order during proceedings seeking early dismissal of the application.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant's delay in filing was incurred in good faith due to her mental health issues, the application must be dismissed because the applicant failed to set out facts that could give rise to a finding of discrimination.

The Tribunal held that the applicant was essentially disputing the results of statutory decision-makers, which does not constitute a discriminatory service under the Code.

The applicant sought an adjournment of a preliminary hearing due to the late filing of the respondents' book of authorities, which was granted.

The applicant also requested the production of files from the Ontario Human Rights Commission related to a previous complaint, arguing they were relevant to his reprisal allegations against the respondents.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for production, finding no evidence that the requested materials were arguably relevant to the issues to be addressed at the preliminary hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination based on disability, sex, and reprisal by the Ottawa Police Services Board and a detective.

The respondents requested dismissal under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, arguing the applicant had commenced a civil action seeking relief for the same matters.

The Tribunal found that the civil action encompassed the applicant's complaints about his treatment and denial of medical attention while in custody.

Therefore, the disability discrimination allegations were barred.

However, the allegations of reprisal and sex discrimination were not raised in the civil action and were permitted to proceed to a preliminary hearing.

The respondents requested reconsideration of an interim decision finding that the Tribunal had jurisdiction over the matter.

They argued the decision was inconsistent with the Supreme Court of Canada's ruling in Scowby v. Glendinning.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that section 1 of the Human Rights Code is valid provincial legislation relating to property and civil rights, and that the doctrines of paramountcy and interjurisdictional immunity do not prevent its application to the civil consequences of arrests or detentions by police.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the police during his arrest, but filed it more than a year after the incident.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed for delay.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, noting that waiting for other legal proceedings or gathering evidence does not constitute good faith delay under section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed as out of time.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of race during an arrest and detention by a police officer.

The respondents brought a motion to dismiss the application, arguing that applying the provincial Human Rights Code to an arrest under the federal Criminal Code would violate the constitutional division of powers.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the Code's prohibition on discrimination in services applies to policing and does not impair the core of the federal criminal law power or conflict with the Criminal Code under the doctrines of interjurisdictional immunity or paramountcy.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint against the police services board and an arresting officer approximately one year and two weeks after the alleged discriminatory incident.

The respondents requested summary dismissal due to the delay.

The applicant argued the delay was justified because his bail conditions prevented him from communicating with security guards involved in the incident, leading him to wait until criminal charges were withdrawn.

The Tribunal found the delay was not incurred in good faith, as the applicant failed to make inquiries about his rights and did not explain the additional six-week delay after the criminal charges were withdrawn.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging the respondent employer failed to accommodate his disability and return him to his pre-injury position following a workplace injury.

The respondent raised preliminary objections, arguing the application was filed out of time and that the applicant's attempt to re-litigate his ability to perform his pre-injury duties was an abuse of process given prior WSIB proceedings.

The Tribunal dismissed the preliminary objections, finding the complaint was filed within one year of the employer's definitive decision that it could not accommodate him.

The Tribunal also held there was no abuse of process because the WSIB had not actually determined whether the applicant could be accommodated without undue hardship.

The applicant alleged discrimination on multiple grounds during a police interview involving a translator, which led to criminal charges and her eventual conviction.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

Finding that the allegations of discrimination were specifically raised and dealt with by the trial judge during the criminal proceeding, the Tribunal concluded that the substance of the application had been appropriately dealt with in another proceeding and dismissed the application.

The respondents brought a Request for Order During Proceeding to dismiss the human rights application for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that the applicant's detention and search fell under federal criminal law.

The applicant argued the police actions constituted services under provincial legislation.

The Tribunal deferred the jurisdictional decision and directed that notice be provided to the Ontario Human Rights Commission to allow it the opportunity to intervene on the broader public policy issue.