6 total
Consent order issued resolving disability discrimination application against school board with damages and systemic remedies.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in services on the basis of disability and reprisal against the respondent school board.
Following mediation/adjudication, the parties entered into Minutes of Settlement and jointly requested a consent order.
The Tribunal issued the consent order under section 45.9(2) of the Human Rights Code, directing the respondent to pay $12,000 in general damages, provide tutoring support, facilitate mediation for future conflicts, amend communication guidelines, and provide human rights training to staff.
Application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as the respondent First Nations organization is a federal undertaking.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment against the respondent, a First Nations organization.
The respondent argued that its operations fall under exclusive federal jurisdiction.
Applying the functional test from NIL/TU,O, the Tribunal found that the respondent, a coalition of First Nations band councils promoting political, social, and economic interests, is a federal undertaking.
The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Request to re-activate deferred human rights application dismissed due to unreasonable delay.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sex discrimination, which was deferred pending the completion of a union grievance process.
The union withdrew the grievance, but the applicant waited over seven months to request re-activation of his Tribunal application, well beyond the 60-day limit in the Tribunal's Rules.
The Tribunal found the delay unreasonable and dismissed the request to re-activate, thereby dismissing the application.
Judicial review of student transfer dismissed; principal has authority to transfer students for safety reasons.
The applicants, two high school students, sought judicial review of a principal's decision to suspend them and transfer them to another school following a violent altercation.
The applicants argued the principal lacked jurisdiction to transfer them, breached procedural fairness, and violated their rights under sections 7 and 15 of the Charter.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the principal had the statutory authority to deny access and transfer students for safety reasons.
The court also held that there was no breach of procedural fairness and that the applicants failed to establish any Charter violations.
Motion to examine additional witness on judicial review granted; settlement agreement did not preclude other witnesses.
The applicant, a university student seeking judicial review of an academic decision, brought a motion to examine witnesses, strike an affidavit, and cross-examine opposing counsel.
The respondents brought a cross-motion arguing a prior settlement agreement restricted the applicant to examining only specific personal respondents.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion to strike the affidavit and cross-examine counsel, finding no basis for either.
The court also dismissed the respondents' cross-motion, interpreting the settlement agreement as only restricting the examination of the named personal respondents, not other witnesses.
The court granted the applicant's request to examine the Chair of the Senate Committee to explore issues of procedural fairness.
Motion to seal court file denied; file to be opened subject to redaction of identifying information.
The respondents brought a motion to continue a sealing order over the court file in an application for judicial review of decisions to exclude and transfer students following an alleged violent incident.
The respondents argued that the sealing order was necessary under the Education Act and the Youth Criminal Justice Act.
The court applied the Dagenais/Mentuck test and found that a complete sealing order was not necessary, as a less intrusive alternative was available.
The court rescinded the sealing order but directed that the court file be edited to remove the names and identifying information of the accused, the victim, and the witnesses.
