Israel Balter

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and sex against Rogers Communications Canada Inc. The respondent requested an order dismissing the application on the basis that it is a federally regulated entity.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss and, after receiving submissions, concluded that it is plain and obvious that the respondent is a federally regulated service provider.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed two applications under the Human Rights Code.

The first alleged that his former employer breached the confidentiality clause of a prior settlement agreement by making negative comments about him in the auto industry.

The second alleged that another dealership refused to hire him because he had filed a human rights application against his former employer, constituting discrimination and reprisal.

The Tribunal found the applicant was not a credible witness due to inconsistent evidence and disruptive behaviour during the hearing.

The Tribunal accepted the respondents' evidence that the refusal to hire the applicant was based on his poor reputation in the industry, not on any knowledge of his prior human rights application.

Both applications were dismissed as the applicant failed to prove his allegations on a balance of probabilities.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination in his termination, over six years after the termination and four years after the last alleged incident.

He had previously commenced a civil action for wrongful dismissal that included the same age discrimination allegations.

Although the applicant indicated an intention to drop the human rights claims from his civil action, he had not formally amended his pleadings before filing the application.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it was filed out of time and was barred by section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code because the civil action had not been withdrawn prior to the application being made.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of age.

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

The applicant relied on workplace incidents and an email between the respondent and its legal counsel discussing her age in the context of reasonable notice.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to point to evidence linking the alleged unfair treatment to her age, and that considering age for reasonable notice is appropriate.

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

The respondent, Ajax Nissan, requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because one of its witnesses and its representative was unable to attend due to medical treatments.

The applicant opposed the request, arguing the applications should proceed separately.

The co-respondent, Midway Nissan, consented to the adjournment.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that the medical treatment constituted an extraordinary circumstance under its Practice Direction, and reaffirmed that the two applications should be heard together to avoid inconsistent findings of credibility.

The applicant filed two applications: one alleging a breach of settlement against Ajax Nissan, and another alleging reprisal and discrimination against Midway Nissan.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction to determine whether the applications should be heard together, given that both arose from the same factual matrix and involved overlapping witnesses.

The respondents supported hearing the matters together to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings and inconsistent findings.

The applicant did not file submissions.

The Tribunal ordered that the two applications be heard together, finding it the most fair and expeditious approach.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of age and disability against Eastern Independent Telecommunications Ltd. and Rogers Communications Partnership.

Rogers requested dismissal on the basis that it is a federal undertaking.

Eastern requested dismissal under s. 45.1 of the Code, arguing that an Employment Standards Officer's decision awarding the applicant termination pay appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against Rogers for lack of jurisdiction.

However, the Tribunal denied Eastern's request to dismiss, finding that the employment standards proceeding did not address the applicant's human rights claims.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application for being filed outside the one-year limitation period.

The applicant argued that the adjudicator denied him procedural fairness by refusing to accept documents and made substantive errors regarding the date of the last alleged incident of discrimination and the finding of no good faith.

The Tribunal found that the adjudicator's determination of the last incident as the date of layoff was not inconsistent with established jurisprudence.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the applicant's medical evidence and late discovery of his Code rights did not establish good faith for the delay.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The respondents requested an adjournment of a scheduled reconsideration hearing on the basis that their counsel had just been retained.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that late retention of counsel does not constitute exceptional circumstances justifying an adjournment under the Tribunal's Practice Direction.

This is a remedy decision following a finding that the complainant was sexually harassed by co-workers and that management's failure to address the harassment led to her dismissal.

The Board of Inquiry awarded special damages for wage loss, applying a common sense test to limit recovery to the period before intervening events broke the chain of causality.

The Board also awarded $10,000 in general damages for the loss of the right to be free from discrimination and $5,000 for mental anguish, noting the respondents' reckless disregard for the complainant's rights.

A request for legal costs was denied for lack of jurisdiction.

The complainant, a labeller at a paint manufacturing plant, alleged she was subjected to ongoing sexual and gender-based harassment by two male co-workers, including inappropriate touching, sexual comments, and physical assaults.

After she suffered a chemical burn from one of the co-workers, the police were called and the men were charged with sexual assault.

Despite this, management failed to investigate, separate the employees, or take any steps to prevent further harassment.

The complainant was subsequently terminated for alleged insubordination.

The Board of Inquiry found that the complainant was sexually harassed, creating a poisoned work environment, and that the harassment was a contributing factor to her dismissal.

The corporate respondent and its senior managers were held jointly and severally liable for failing to take reasonable steps to address the harassment.

The complainant in a human rights complaint alleging sexual harassment was served with criminal charges for attempting to obstruct justice and fraud, arising from alleged inconsistencies in her testimony.

The Commission and the complainant requested a stay of the human rights hearing to protect her against self-incrimination under the Charter.

The Board of Inquiry dismissed the request, finding that s. 11(c) of the Charter did not apply because the human rights hearing was not a proceeding against the complainant.

The Board held that the complainant was a compellable witness and that the criminal court would determine the admissibility of her testimony.

The Board directed the hearing to proceed with the respondents' case before considering whether further re-cross-examination of the complainant on damages was appropriate.

The respondents brought preliminary motions to dismiss a human rights complaint alleging sex discrimination and sexual harassment.

They argued the Board of Inquiry lacked jurisdiction because the Commission failed to locate and attempt settlement with two individual respondents, and alternatively that proceeding would be an abuse of process due to delay.

The Board held that the Commission's failure to locate a respondent does not deprive the Board of jurisdiction.

The motion to dismiss for delay was denied for the corporate respondent and two individuals as no actual prejudice was shown.

However, the proceedings were terminated against one individual respondent who had no notice of the complaint until the day before the hearing, as the complete loss of opportunity to participate in the investigation and settlement stages constituted an abuse of process.