8 total
Tribunal grants respondent's request to amend pleadings and respond to new allegations.
The respondent condominium corporation filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to amend its amended Response to correct factual inaccuracies regarding a fitness room door, to amend the style of cause, and to respond to new allegations raised by the applicant.
The Tribunal granted the request to amend the Response and to respond to the new allegations, finding no prejudice to the applicant.
The request to amend the style of cause was deferred to the hearing adjudicator.
The Tribunal also extended the applicant's deadline to file a Reply to the co-respondent's Response.
Property manager added as respondent to human rights application; request to add opposing lawyers denied.
The applicant in a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing sought to add her condominium corporation's property manager and lawyers as respondents.
The Tribunal granted the request to add the property manager, finding the applicant made allegations that could support a Code violation regarding day-to-day management.
The Tribunal denied the request to add the lawyers, noting that the relationship between a lawyer and an opposing party does not fall within the social areas covered by the Code.
Corporation ordered to pay $2,000 for breaching settlement; request to add officers personally dismissed.
The applicant filed an application alleging the respondent corporation breached Minutes of Settlement by failing to pay $2,000 in general damages.
The applicant sought to add the corporate officers as personal respondents, arguing they signed the settlement knowing the corporation was impecunious.
The Tribunal dismissed the request to add the officers, finding no evidence of fraud or deceit to justify piercing the corporate veil.
The Tribunal found the respondent corporation breached the settlement and ordered it to pay the $2,000 owed, along with pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.
Motion to amend human rights application granted; motion to add property manager and lawyers as respondents denied.
The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to amend her human rights application to add new allegations of discrimination regarding condominium common areas and parking, to increase the remedy sought, and to add the condominium's property manager and lawyers as respondents.
The Tribunal granted the request to amend the application, finding the new allegations were related to the original narrative and the amendment would not unduly prejudice the respondent.
However, the Tribunal denied the request to add the proposed respondents, as the applicant failed to provide specific allegations or facts that could support a finding that they violated the Human Rights Code.
Human rights application dismissed as applicant had no reasonable prospect of proving interference with medical treatment.
The applicant alleged that the respondents interfered with his ability to obtain medical treatment for leg ulcers by instructing a home care nurse not to enter his unit due to a bed bug infestation.
The Tribunal required the applicant to provide a statement from the nurse.
The nurse's statement indicated that she conferred with her superiors and followed their directions not to enter, rather than being instructed by the respondents' staff.
The Tribunal found that the statement did not support the applicant's allegation and concluded there was no reasonable prospect of success.
The application was dismissed in its entirety.
Tribunal rules that a bed bug infestation does not constitute a disability under the Human Rights Code.
The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and age, primarily arguing that a bed bug infestation in his condominium unit constituted a disability.
The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.
The Tribunal held that being a potential transporter of bed bugs does not fall within the definition of disability under section 10 of the Human Rights Code.
The Tribunal dismissed the majority of the application, including claims related to meal and housekeeping services, but allowed one allegation regarding interference with medical treatment to proceed pending the submission of a witness statement.
Human rights application alleging racial discrimination in housing dismissed for lack of evidence.
The applicant alleged discrimination with respect to housing on the basis of race and colour.
She claimed the respondents discriminatorily required her to remove a balcony enclosure, ignored racist graffiti near the condominium, and failed to address the theft of her laundry.
The Tribunal found no link between the applicant's race or colour and the respondents' actions regarding the balcony enclosure or the stolen laundry.
Regarding the graffiti, the Tribunal found that the respondents took immediate and reasonable steps to cover it up, even though it was located on neighbouring property.
The application was dismissed.
Human rights application dismissed under s. 45.1 as the substance was already decided by an ESO.
The respondents requested the dismissal of a human rights application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that an Employment Standards Officer (ESO) had already appropriately dealt with the substance of the allegations.
The applicant had previously filed an Employment Standards Act complaint alleging reprisal and discrimination related to her pregnancy, which resulted in the ESO awarding damages for a withheld bonus but finding no violation regarding her termination.
The Tribunal found that the ESO proceeding appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.
Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the applicant's deliberate decision to withhold certain allegations from the ESO proceeding to raise them later before the Tribunal constituted an abuse of process.
