Fiona Brown

The respondents brought a Request for Order During Proceedings to remove the named personal respondent from the human rights application.

The applicant consented to the removal.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the personal respondent was acting within the scope of his duties as a director of the condominium corporation, and that the corporation was deemed liable for his actions under section 45(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking to remove the personal respondent, who was the Chair of the Board of the organizational respondent.

The Tribunal applied the factors from Sigrist and Carson and denied the request, finding that the applicant made allegations of conduct against the personal respondent that, if proven, could lead to a finding of discrimination and remedies against him personally.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability and race.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed for delay and for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the allegations relating to incidents from December 2012 to February 2013 due to delay, as they were filed outside the one-year limitation period without a reasonable explanation.

However, the Tribunal declined to dismiss the May 2014 allegation, finding a sufficient nexus between the alleged workplace harassment and the applicant's disability to warrant a full hearing.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal, claiming the respondent failed to reply to his requests for information about its insurance carrier in retaliation for a 2006 human rights complaint.

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

The Tribunal found no evidentiary basis linking the respondent's failure to respond to the applicant's disability or his prior complaint.

The application was dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.

The insurer brought a motion to compel the insured to attend neuropsychological and psychiatric assessments, or alternatively to stay the arbitration until he attended.

The arbitrator dismissed the motion, finding that the insurer failed to provide proper notice under section 42 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

Furthermore, the arbitrator concluded that the requested examinations were not for the purpose of determining entitlement to benefits, but rather to gather evidence for the upcoming arbitration hearing.

The insurer was ordered to pay $600 in expenses.