Donald Kidd

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to amend his human rights application to add an allegation of discrimination and attach two documents.

The Tribunal denied the request, agreeing with the respondent that the amendment was unnecessary because discrimination was already alleged in the original application.

The Tribunal noted that the attached documents could be disclosed and filed in accordance with Rule 16 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to summarily dismiss the human rights application.

They argued that the Islamic Society of Guelph is a special interest group exempt from the Human Rights Code under section 18, and that it is not a vocational association as alleged by the applicant.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the section 18 exemption requires a full evidentiary record to determine if the organization's activities are fundamentally religious.

The Tribunal also noted the applicant could amend the application to allege discrimination in services rather than vocational association membership.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in goods, services, or facilities because of disability.

A summary hearing was scheduled by teleconference.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing despite having received notice.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application for non-attendance.

The applicant, a former car sales representative, alleged that she was sexually harassed and discriminated against by her manager on the basis of sex, marital status, and association, and that she was subjected to reprisal after complaining.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's evidence lacked credibility and was unsupported by other witnesses.

The Tribunal concluded that the employer's actions, including setting sales targets, were a legitimate response to the applicant's poor sales performance and were untainted by discriminatory considerations.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a veterinarian, brought a motion for an order summarily allowing his appeal and setting aside a ruling that fined him for incorrectly labeling diazepam with a 36-hour withdrawal time.

The applicant argued that a previous Commission decision involving another veterinarian had already determined the issue.

The Commission dismissed the motion, finding that a genuine issue for hearing existed because the horse in this case was concurrently taking omeprazole, which could affect the clearance time, and because new information regarding clearance times may have become available since the previous decision.