James Heeney

The Applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) and medical benefits following a low-speed motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the Applicant failed to provide contemporaneous medical evidence demonstrating a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment as a cleaning company manager.

The Tribunal relied on insurer's examination reports which found no functional impairments or severe emotional symptomology.

Claims for physiotherapy, psychological services, and an occupational therapy assessment were also dismissed as not reasonable and necessary.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of race and disability following his termination.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed at a summary hearing, arguing the applicant was terminated for attempting to steal company property and had not established a link to a Code ground.

The Tribunal found the application could proceed, as there were factual disputes regarding the alleged theft and the applicant provided names of other terminated and hired employees to support his race discrimination claim.

The Tribunal also noted the timing of the termination, one day after the respondent's WSIA re-employment obligations ended, was sufficient for the disability claim to proceed.

The respondent employer brought a request to dismiss the human rights application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that a WSIB Case Manager's decision had appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the WSIB decision only addressed the applicant's temporary compensable injury and did not deal with the central issue of whether the employer failed to accommodate the applicant's permanent restrictions and discriminatorily terminated his employment for frustration of contract.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sexual solicitation and reprisal against a Tim Hortons franchisee and its franchisor, TDL.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal denied TDL's request to be removed as a respondent, finding it premature without evidence regarding TDL's role in addressing public complaints.

The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's 2009 allegations as independent Code violations due to delay, but allowed them to remain as foundational facts for her 2013 reprisal claim.

The Tribunal also denied the applicant's request to amend her application to include new reprisal allegations based on the delivery of legal materials and public encounters.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment.

The respondent requested deferral of the application pending the conclusion of a concurrent Employment Standards Act claim before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The applicant also requested production of documents.

The Tribunal denied the applicant's request for documents as premature and granted the respondent's request to defer the application, finding substantial overlap in the facts and issues between the two proceedings.

The Tribunal also directed the applicant to cease making inappropriate comments about the respondent's counsel.

The parties sought on consent to adjourn the hearing scheduled for January 26 and 27, 2011, due to a death in the family of one of the respondents' witnesses.

The Tribunal found this constituted an exceptional circumstance.

The Tribunal ordered that the hearing proceed on the scheduled dates for the applicant's case, and then be adjourned to a new date for the respondents' evidence.

The parties sought a consent adjournment of a scheduled hearing to attempt mediation.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that its Practice Directions and case law clearly state that the desire to explore settlement does not constitute exceptional circumstances warranting an adjournment.

The parties were directed to immediately file their overdue witness statements and documents, and any preliminary motions would be dealt with at the outset of the hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment based on family status and association with a person identified by a Code-related ground, arising from an October 2, 2009 meeting with the individual respondent.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code because the applicant had commenced a civil claim based on the same facts.

The Tribunal found that the civil claim and the human rights application were based on the same factual context and sought similar remedies.

As a result, the Tribunal concluded it had no jurisdiction and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging racial discrimination after his employment was terminated due to a plant closure.

The respondent requested early dismissal of the application because the applicant had signed a full and final release in exchange for an enhanced severance package.

The applicant argued he was distraught and under economic duress when he signed the release.

The Tribunal found that the applicant understood the release and that his financial difficulties did not amount to economic duress.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw her human rights application pursuant to Rule 10 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondent made no submissions on the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.