Iain Aspenlieder

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following an alleged incident on a public transit bus.

The insurer denied the claim on the basis that no collision occurred, as required by section 268(1.1) of the Insurance Act.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's testimony of feeling a bump while half asleep was insufficient to prove a collision occurred, especially given the lack of an incident report from the transit service and a three-month delay in reporting.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant alleged discrimination based on race, place of origin, and creed against Sheepdog Tactical and the Ottawa Police.

The applicant claimed he was assaulted by the owner of Sheepdog Tactical and that the police improperly investigated the incident, leading to his own arrest.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application against Sheepdog Tactical for lack of jurisdiction, as the alleged assault did not occur within a protected social area.

The application against the Ottawa Police was also dismissed because the applicant provided no evidence linking the police's actions to a prohibited ground under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to policing services on the basis of disability and sexual orientation.

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

The Tribunal waited thirty minutes before proceeding.

The application was dismissed on the basis that the applicant was deemed to have abandoned it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging he was subjected to racial profiling when a police officer pulled him over and issued two traffic tickets.

The respondents requested an early dismissal, arguing the application was an abuse of process because the applicant had already been convicted of the traffic offences in the Ontario Court of Justice, which had also considered and rejected his racial profiling allegations.

The Tribunal applied the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in CUPE and dismissed the application, finding that allowing it to proceed would necessitate re-litigating facts and issues already determined by the Court, which constitutes an abuse of process.