D. Beth Walden

The applicant and corporate respondent filed Requests for Order During Proceedings seeking the production of witness contact information and arguably relevant documents, including medical records, notes, and university files.

Both parties consented to the production requests.

The Tribunal ordered the production of the requested documents and information.

The Tribunal denied the parties' requests to expedite or delay the standard disclosure timelines under Rules 16 and 17, finding no compelling reasons to deviate from the rules.

The applicant, a minor, alleged sex discrimination after the respondent denied her a co-op placement as a mechanic.

The respondent brought a request for an order during proceedings, seeking the appointment of a litigation guardian, the production of the applicant's complete high school academic, attendance, and medical records, and permission to contact the high school co-op program directly.

The Tribunal noted a litigation guardian had already been appointed.

Applying the arguable relevance test, the Tribunal denied the broad production requests, ordering only the production of school and attendance records that the respondent possessed at the time of the interview.

The request for medical records was denied because the applicant did not claim medical intervention.

The request to contact the co-op program was denied as the applicant intended to call a witness from the program.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the hearing to allow time for an allergy specialist appointment to confirm her alleged shellfish allergy, which is central to her claim of discrimination on the basis of disability.

The respondent opposed the request.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that medical confirmation of the allergy would narrow the issues and expedite the matter without prejudicing the respondent.

The applicant, a resident in a co-operative housing unit, sought an interim remedy to stay the respondent's consideration of her request for reconsideration of an eviction decision, pending the determination of her human rights application.

The applicant alleged discrimination based on disability, family status, and receipt of public assistance.

The Tribunal denied the request for an interim stay of the reconsideration meeting, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate that the balance of harm or convenience favoured granting the remedy, as no harm flowed simply from the respondent's consideration of the request.

The Tribunal sought further submissions on the remainder of the interim remedy request.

The applicants filed human rights applications alleging sexual harassment in employment and a failure by the respondents to properly investigate.

At the commencement of the hearing, the respondents requested that the two applications be heard together and that the hearing be adjourned.

The Tribunal ordered the applications consolidated due to overlapping facts and the risk of inconsistent findings, and granted the adjournment on consent.

The Tribunal also ordered the exclusion of witnesses but exempted the respondents' advisor, provided he testify first.

Finally, the Tribunal ruled that intended testimony regarding one applicant spreading rumours was inadmissible character evidence.

The applicant brought a Request for Order during a Proceeding to add several municipalities as respondents and to compel disclosure of closed Board meeting minutes and a personnel file.

The Tribunal granted the request to add the municipalities, noting they comprise the unincorporated Mid-Huron Landfill Site Board and their addition ensures any award is enforceable.

The Tribunal declined to order disclosure of the disputed documents at this stage, requiring the applicant to establish an evidentiary foundation for relevance at the hearing on the merits.

The tenant appealed a decision of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal, which had dismissed his claim for general damages on the basis that it lacked jurisdiction.

The tenant and his family had been assaulted by the landlord's friends in an attempt to force them to vacate, breaching the covenant of quiet enjoyment.

The Divisional Court held that the Tribunal erred in law, finding that the residual power to 'make any other order that it considers appropriate' under the Tenant Protection Act includes the jurisdiction to award damages for breach of contract.

The Court allowed the appeal and awarded the tenant $4,000 in damages.