Jean Leslie Marentette

The applicant in a human rights proceeding requested to amend her application to add a claim for $50,000 in compensation for injury and harassment.

The respondents requested production of the applicant's pre-entrance health examination and health history forms.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to amend the remedy sought, noting that it did not significantly enlarge the scope of the complaint.

The Tribunal also granted the respondents' request for production of the medical documents, finding them arguably relevant to the applicant's claim of discrimination on the basis of disability.

The applicant sought to re-activate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the outcome of related proceedings at the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB).

The respondents opposed the re-activation.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant's appeal to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) was not expected to be heard until at least June 2017, resulting in excessive delay.

Given the passage of time since the 2011 events and the uncertainty that the WSIAT would address the substance of the human rights allegations, the Tribunal granted the request and ordered the application re-activated.

The applicant requested to reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the outcome of a related Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) proceeding.

The applicant argued that the WSIB process was delayed and causing prejudice.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the WSIB proceeding had not concluded and still dealt with overlapping facts and issues, and that delay alone did not justify reactivation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability following a work-related knee injury.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant had an ongoing claim for benefits at the WSIB regarding the same facts and issues.

The Tribunal found that the factors favouring deferral, including avoiding duplicate proceedings and inconsistent findings, outweighed the factors against deferral.

The application was deferred pending the conclusion of the WSIB proceedings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming the respondent Children's Aid Society improperly disclosed her medical information to the respondent Family Respite Services, which then refused to hire her.

The Children's Aid Society requested that the Tribunal defer the application because the applicant had also filed a complaint with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada.

The Tribunal dismissed the request to defer, finding that the privacy complaint involved different legal issues and potential remedies, and that proceeding with the human rights application was the most fair, just, and expeditious outcome.

The appellant appealed an order striking her statement of claim, which sought a declaration that the respondent's deceased son was the biological father of her adult son, and requested paternity testing from the respondent.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the parens patriae jurisdiction could not be invoked to override section 5(2) of the Children's Law Reform Act, which expressly prohibits an application for a declaration of parentage unless both persons whose relationship is sought to be established are living.