Janina Fogels

The applicants sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision finding them liable for sex discrimination, a poisoned work environment, and reprisal.

The Tribunal had awarded the respondent $30,000 in general damages after she was terminated for complaining about sexualized comments and conduct.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the adjudicator's factual findings, damages award, and treatment of the incidents as a continuous series were reasonable.

The court also rejected the argument that the adjudicator's partial reproduction of the respondent's submissions compromised his independence.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment by the respondent.

During a mediation-adjudication session, the applicant presented a written offer to settle, which the respondent orally accepted.

The applicant later claimed there was no settlement, arguing he withdrew his offer, was under duress, and lacked medical capacity to understand the terms.

The Tribunal found that a binding settlement was reached, as the essential terms were agreed upon and the applicant intended to form a settlement.

The applicant failed to prove he withdrew the offer or that he was incapacitated or coerced.

The Application was dismissed as an abuse of process in light of the binding settlement.

The applicant, a transgender student, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on sex, gender identity, and gender expression by the respondent school board.

The respondent requested that allegations relating to events outside the one-year limitation period be dismissed.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine whether the untimely allegations constituted a 'series of incidents' under s. 34(1)(b) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the earlier incidents, which primarily involved interactions with other pupils and did not single out the applicant for differential treatment based on Code grounds, did not form a series of incidents with the timely allegations.

The untimely allegations were struck from the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on place of origin, ethnic origin, age, and reprisal against his employer, a co-worker/union steward, and his union.

Following a case management call to address preliminary issues, the Tribunal issued an interim decision allowing the applicant to amend his pleadings to include the grounds of race and vocational association.

The Tribunal also granted the applicant's request to add the union as a respondent and set deadlines for the union to file a response and for the parties to exchange documents prior to the scheduled hearing dates.

In a human rights application alleging discrimination based on family status, marital status, and reprisal, the respondent requested that several paragraphs of the applicant's amended Application be struck for being vague, untimely, or contrary to a previous Tribunal order.

The Tribunal reviewed the disputed paragraphs, allowing some to remain, striking others that were overly broad or raised for the first time, and ordering the applicant to provide further particulars (such as dates) for the remaining vague allegations.

In this interim decision, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario addressed several procedural issues in an ongoing human rights application alleging discrimination based on family status, marital status, and reprisal.

The Tribunal permitted the applicant to file an amended Application to include new allegations related to his suspension and termination, subject to specific parameters to prevent re-litigating previously decided issues.

The Tribunal dismissed the respondent's request to declare the applicant a vexatious litigant, finding his conduct did not amount to an abuse of process.

The Tribunal also addressed issues regarding the respondent's disclosure of the Application in another proceeding and the applicant's communication with the Tribunal, providing directions on how to proceed.

The applicant filed a human rights application naming ECE Distribution Ltd. and an individual as respondents.

ECE Distribution Ltd. filed a response denying an employment relationship, claiming the applicant was an independent contractor with Cooney Promotions Inc. The Tribunal previously added Cooney Promotions Inc. as a respondent and requested submissions on whether ECE Distribution Ltd. should be removed.

Based on the applicant's uncontradicted submissions showing overlapping corporate directors, shared addresses, and email signatures, the Tribunal found sufficient evidence of an employment-related relationship to retain ECE Distribution Ltd. as a respondent at this preliminary stage.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sexual harassment and reprisals against ECE Distribution Ltd. and an individual respondent.

ECE Distribution denied an employment relationship, stating the applicant was an independent contractor with Cooney Promotions Inc. The applicant requested to add Cooney Promotions Inc. as an organization respondent.

Applying the Smyth test, the Tribunal found that the application contained allegations that could support a finding of a Code violation by Cooney Promotions Inc. and that adding the party at this early stage would not cause prejudice.

The request to add Cooney Promotions Inc. was granted, and the applicant was directed to provide submissions on why ECE Distribution should remain a respondent.

The respondent City of Toronto brought a request for early dismissal of an application alleging that its zoning by-laws discriminate against persons with mental health disabilities by imposing minimum separation distances for supportive housing.

The City argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to strike down by-laws, that the Ontario Municipal Board was the proper forum, and that the application was vague and hypothetical.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for early dismissal, finding it premature to decide these issues without a full evidentiary record, and allowed the applicant's request to amend the application.

In an ongoing human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, the applicant requested to withdraw the application against the Union and the Union requested to continue as an intervenor.

The Tribunal granted both requests.

The Tribunal also addressed outstanding disclosure issues, noting the corporate respondent's failure to comply with previous disclosure orders, and ordered the respondent to provide contact information for two proposed witnesses.

The applicant in a human rights complaint alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings for the production of documents.

The corporate respondent had failed to comply with disclosure rules and demanded the applicant's counsel visit its office to review documents and pay for copies.

The Tribunal found the requested documents arguably relevant and ordered the corporate respondent to immediately provide a list of relevant documents and produce them by a specified date, or formally claim privilege.

The applicant filed an application alleging the respondents breached a settlement agreement by failing to pay $5,000 and complete human rights training.

The respondents admitted the failure but argued they were excused because the applicant allegedly breached the confidentiality clause.

The Tribunal found the respondents failed to prove the applicant breached confidentiality, relying only on hearsay from an unidentified stranger.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to pay the $5,000 settlement amount, complete the required training, and pay an additional $1,500 in monetary compensation for the harm caused by the breach.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging racial profiling and harassment by police officers.

The respondents sought early dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application had been appropriately dealt with through a complaint under the Police Services Act.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the police investigation framed the issues narrowly and did not consider human rights principles or allegations of discrimination.

The Tribunal also rejected the argument that the application constituted an abuse of process.

The Member, a teacher, faced allegations of professional misconduct for making inappropriate physical contact with students and speaking aggressively to a student.

The Member pleaded no contest to the allegations and admitted to the facts in an Agreed Statement of Facts.

The Discipline Committee found the Member guilty of professional misconduct.

Accepting a joint submission on penalty, the Committee ordered a reprimand, completion of a course on boundaries, and publication of the decision in summary form without the Member's name.

During a grievance arbitration regarding workplace accommodation, the employer requested disclosure of a notebook kept by the grievor.

The union resisted disclosure, claiming litigation privilege because the grievor recorded the notes anticipating her grievances would proceed.

The arbitrator held that litigation privilege protects materials prepared with the dominant purpose of litigation, such as preparing a position, but does not extend to mere factual recordings of events as they occur.

Since the notebook contained factual notes of events about which the grievor had testified, it was not privileged and was ordered to be disclosed.

In the course of an arbitration, the employer sought disclosure of notes contained in the grievor's diary.

The Grievance Settlement Board ruled that any notes recording events, conversations, or interactions between the grievor and the employer about which she testified or will testify are not protected by litigation privilege.

The union was directed to disclose such notes, with unrelated information to be excluded.