Jamie McGinnis

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing her application for alleged sexual harassment and age discrimination by an assistant manager at a Goodlife gym.

The applicant argued the Tribunal unreasonably interpreted the test for sexual harassment, made unreasonable evidentiary findings, and erred in finding Goodlife met its duty to investigate.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's credibility assessments, factual findings, and conclusions regarding the duty to investigate were reasonable and entitled to deference.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing of her human rights application alleging discrimination in employment because of sex, having slept in and missed her ride.

Her counsel received instructions to abandon the application.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a Contravention of Settlement Application alleging the respondents failed to pay a $15,000 settlement reached at mediation.

The respondents did not appear at the hearing despite receiving notice.

The Tribunal found the respondents breached the settlement by failing to pay the agreed amount.

Applying contractual principles, the Tribunal ordered the respondents to pay the $15,000 settlement amount, plus $5,000 in general damages for the emotional harm and distress caused by the breach, along with pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.

The applicant, a restaurant server, alleged that the co-owner of the restaurant sexually harassed her while he was intoxicated.

She also alleged that the restaurant failed to take her complaints seriously, forcing her to resign.

The Tribunal found that the co-owner subjected the applicant to inappropriate sexual comments and touching, amounting to sexual harassment and solicitation.

The Tribunal also found that the corporate respondent failed to investigate or address the matter, creating a poisoned work environment.

The respondents were ordered to pay $20,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and $9,440.52 for lost wages, along with public interest remedies including human rights training and policy development.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to service because of disability.

Following an interim order allowing the applicant to amend the application with new allegations, the parties filed a consent request to adjourn the scheduled hearing dates to allow the respondent sufficient time to investigate and respond.

The Tribunal found exceptional circumstances existed and granted the adjournment, setting a new schedule for filing the amended response and reply.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing based on race, colour, ancestry, and sex.

The respondent requested dismissal on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) directing the applicant to respond.

The applicant failed to respond to the NOID or file a Reply.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant sought to amend a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by the respondent school board.

The respondent did not oppose the amendment but requested the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter was previously determined by the Ontario College of Teachers.

The Tribunal granted the amendment and denied the request to dismiss, finding that the College proceeding had a substantially different purpose and did not fully address the substance of the human rights application.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend her human rights application to include new allegations of failure to accommodate her disability at a different recreation facility, which occurred after the original application was filed.

The respondent opposed the amendment, arguing it would expand the scope of the proceeding and cause prejudice.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the new allegations were a continuation of the original claims, the request was timely, and amending the application was more efficient than requiring a new, separate application.

The applicant in a human rights application alleging employment discrimination based on disability and reprisal requested that the respondents provide particulars regarding their allegations of her failure to perform essential duties, unauthorized absences, and customer complaints.

The Tribunal denied the request as premature, noting that the responses contained sufficient information for the applicant to reply, and that documentary disclosure obligations would be triggered if a Notice of Hearing is issued.

The applicant, who alleged discrimination and reprisal regarding employment due to disability, requested to add the owner and manager of the corporate respondent as a personal respondent.

The applicant argued that the individual respondent was responsible for the refusal to accommodate and the termination, and that the corporate respondent's main asset was facing a court-ordered sale, which could impede recovery of any ordered remedy.

The Tribunal applied the Smyth criteria and granted the request, finding that the allegations supported personal liability, the potential sale of assets provided a compelling reason, and adding the respondent at this stage was fair.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding requested an order for third-party disclosure from Yahoo!

Inc. to identify the user of an email account that allegedly sent a reprisal email to her new employer.

The Tribunal denied the request because the applicant failed to serve the third party with the Request for an Order During Proceedings, as required by Rule 19 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The denial was without prejudice to the applicant's right to revive the request upon compliance with the Rules.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceeding asking the Tribunal to order the respondent to pay witness conduct money for a witness the applicant intended to call for cross-examination.

The witness was originally proposed by the respondent, who later decided to rely on her affidavit instead.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that witness fees are an item of costs and the Tribunal does not have the authority to award costs.

The Tribunal permitted the applicant to call the witness via teleconference.

The individual respondent in a human rights application brought two requests for an order during proceedings: one to amend her Response, and another to remove herself as a personal respondent.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, noting it was made at an early stage and caused no prejudice.

However, the Tribunal denied the request to remove the individual respondent, finding that because the organizational respondent disputed vicarious liability for the alleged reprisals, removing the individual respondent could leave the applicant without a remedy.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to compel the respondent to provide more detailed witness statements for two proposed witnesses.

The respondent did not file a response.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's witness statements lacked particularity and ordered the respondent to deliver detailed witness statements setting out the particular evidence the witnesses would give.

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

The Tribunal addressed several preliminary requests for orders during proceedings (RFOPs).

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to amend the application to add a newly discovered act of reprisal, noting the lack of prejudice to the respondents.

The Tribunal denied the respondents' request to remove the individual respondents, finding it premature before pre-hearing disclosure, as the individual respondents' involvement in the alleged harassment and reprisal was central to the claims.

The Tribunal deferred the respondents' requests to strike a paragraph of the application and to dismiss the application under section 45.1 of the Code to the adjudicator assigned to hear the merits.

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

The respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the conclusion of concurrent grievance and arbitration proceedings dealing with the same facts and allegations.

The Tribunal found that deferral was the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed, as the arbitrator has the jurisdiction to address all claims, including human rights issues.

The application was deferred pending the completion of the grievance process.

The respondents requested a change of venue for the hearing from Thunder Bay to Fort Frances, citing difficulties in securing witnesses willing to travel.

The applicant opposed the request and sought an order regarding the respondents' failure to comply with pre-hearing disclosure obligations.

The Tribunal denied the change of venue, finding the request untimely and lacking sufficient Code-related reasons.

The Tribunal also directed the respondents to immediately file their required witness statements and materials, warning of potential evidentiary sanctions for non-compliance.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend her human rights application to add allegations of reprisals committed by the respondents after the application was filed.

The respondents' representative, who appeared to be an unlicensed third-party advocate, filed a separate request.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to amend, finding no prejudice to the respondents given the early stage of the proceeding.

The Tribunal also ordered the respondents' representative to identify the category or exemption that permitted him to act as a representative before the Tribunal, as he did not appear to be licensed by the Law Society of Upper Canada.

The applicant requested an order to permit three medical witnesses to testify by telephone conference during the upcoming hearing.

The respondents opposed the request, citing a lack of detailed witness statements and insufficient time for cross-examination.

The Tribunal granted the request but ordered the applicant to provide detailed witness statements in advance, which the witnesses will adopt as their evidence-in-chief, to ensure the respondents have adequate time for cross-examination.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging the respondents failed to accommodate his disabilities by refusing his requests to transfer to a ground floor unit in 2008 and 2010.

The applicant brought a request for an order during proceedings seeking production of redacted tenancy agreements and waiting lists.

The Tribunal declined to order production, accepting the respondents' representation that the documents had already been produced or no longer existed.

The Tribunal also noted that the 2008 allegations appeared to be outside the one-year time limit under the Human Rights Code and ordered the parties to provide written submissions on timeliness prior to the hearing.