Jayson A. Rider

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking the addresses and telephone numbers of three prospective witnesses employed by the corporate respondent.

The Tribunal previously directed the respondents to provide this information, but the respondents instead offered to serve the subpoenas themselves.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to provide the contact information to the applicant, noting that a party has the right to attempt to discuss potential testimony with prospective witnesses.

The respondents brought a request for an order to dismiss the human rights application without a hearing on the merits, arguing that they were willing to pay the full monetary compensation requested by the applicant and that continuing the hearing would be an abuse of process.

The applicant, who was self-represented, did not consent and wished to proceed to a hearing to obtain a finding on the merits, an apology, and public interest remedies.

The Tribunal dismissed the respondents' request, finding it lacked jurisdiction to make the requested order without a finding of infringement or the consent of both parties.

The Tribunal further held that the applicant's desire to proceed with the hearing did not constitute an abuse of process.

The applicant sought to amend his human rights application to add allegations of failure to accommodate and reprisal, and requested further documentary disclosure from the respondents.

The respondents consented to some amendments but objected to others, arguing they would require a new hearing date.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, finding that the new allegations flowed from the original complaint and that hearing all matters together would be efficient.

The Tribunal also ordered the respondents to disclose requested documents relevant to the applicant's claim that he had alerted them to his disability-related difficulties prior to his leave.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and failure to accommodate a workplace injury.

The respondent requested dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance of the application was already dealt with by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT).

The Tribunal found that the WSIAT had appropriately applied human rights principles in determining that the work offered to the applicant was suitable and in rejecting his claims of harassment and discrimination.

The application was dismissed to avoid duplication of proceedings.

The applicant, Honda of Canada, Manufacturing, sought a stay of a Human Rights Tribunal proceeding pending the disposition of its application for judicial review.

Honda argued that the respondent failed to comply with disclosure rules, denying it procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, applying the RJR MacDonald test.

The court found that Honda had not exhausted its remedies before the Tribunal, failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favoured allowing the Tribunal proceeding to run its course.

The respondents brought a motion to dismiss the complainant's human rights complaint without a hearing, arguing that the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) had exclusive jurisdiction over the accommodation of his workplace injury, and that the complaint was barred by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, issue estoppel, and abuse of process.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the Human Rights Code has primacy and provides concurrent jurisdiction over discrimination issues.

The Tribunal also found that issue estoppel and abuse of process did not apply because the WSIB had not issued a final decision on whether the employer could accommodate the complainant, and the parties were not identical.

A request for a stay of proceedings pending judicial review was also denied.