Joanna Rainbow

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, and creed, arguing that tuition fees and interest-bearing student loans are discriminatory against descendants of slaves.

He sought free tuition or interest-free loans, claiming that paying interest violated his religious beliefs.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application as having no reasonable prospect of success, finding that financial assistance is based on financial need rather than Code-protected grounds, and that the applicant failed to provide objective evidence linking his objection to interest to a specific religion.

The applicant sought to amend her human rights application to add new allegations regarding a prior student placement and to add York University as a respondent.

The respondents opposed these requests and sought to remove the personal respondent from the proceeding.

The Tribunal denied the applicant's requests, finding that the proposed new allegations were untimely under s. 34(1) of the Human Rights Code and did not form part of a series of incidents with the original allegations.

The Tribunal also denied the respondents' request to remove the personal respondent, as her conduct was a central issue in the case.

The applicant, a university student, alleged discrimination based on race and related grounds after a librarian recorded his computer number, and alleged reprisal after the university restricted his campus access following his complaints.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the applications had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal allowed the discrimination application to proceed, finding that if the applicant's allegations were proven, they could raise an inference of discrimination.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the reprisal application, as the applicant had not raised a Code issue prior to the alleged reprisal, meaning the university's actions could not constitute reprisal under section 8 of the Code.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled preliminary hearing due to scheduling conflicts and the need for more time to prepare.

The respondent opposed the request, citing untimeliness and the applicant's disrespectful conduct, and sought orders to stop the applicant from sending derogatory messages.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, noting concerns that the applicant might not be able to effectively participate, which would cause further delay.

The Tribunal declined to address the respondent's requests for orders within the context of the adjournment request, directing the respondent to file a separate Request for Order.

The applicant, a former student in a university education program, alleged discrimination on the basis of race, sex, marital status, and other grounds, claiming a conspiracy by faculty members to fail him in his practicum after he refused sexual advances.

Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal found the applicant's testimony lacked credibility and was inconsistent with the documentary evidence.

The Tribunal concluded that the allegations had no reasonable prospect of success and dismissed the application.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of marital status, family status, and association with a person identified by a protected ground, claiming he was not hired by the respondent university because his spouse was already employed there.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding that section 24(1)(d) of the Human Rights Code provides a complete defence for employers who refuse to hire the spouse of an employee.

The Tribunal also found no reasonable prospect of success on the grounds of family status or association.

The applicant filed requests for reconsideration of a decision that dismissed her 11 human rights applications after she failed to participate in a summary hearing.

She argued that she had to attend the hospital emergency department on the day of the hearing and provided a medical note.

The Tribunal found the medical note insufficient as it did not explain why she was unable to participate or indicate she was incapacitated.

Given the applicant's history of failing to comply with Tribunal directions regarding her prior adjournment requests, the Tribunal concluded there were no new determinative facts or other factors outweighing the public interest in finality.

The requests for reconsideration were dismissed.

The applicant, a foreign national, alleged that the respondent university's hiring guidelines discriminated against him on the basis of citizenship by giving priority to Canadian citizens and permanent residents for academic positions.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the university's policy mirrored federal guidelines and was therefore a requirement imposed or authorized by law, falling squarely within the exception in section 16(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in the area of goods, services and facilities.

A summary hearing was scheduled to determine whether the application should be dismissed against the university respondents.

At the outset of the hearing, the applicant withdrew the application against the university respondents, which was granted by the Tribunal.

The personal respondents brought a Request for Order During Proceedings to be removed as parties to the human rights application and to add their employer, York University, as the sole respondent.

The applicant, a student alleging discrimination in services on the basis of race following a dispute with another student, made no submissions on the request.

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal found that the personal respondents were acting in the course of their employment, York University did not object to being named, and there was no issue as to the university's vicarious liability or ability to remedy the alleged infringement.

The Tribunal granted the request, removing the personal respondents and adding York University.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding sought to 'appeal' an earlier interim decision that denied his request to expand his witness list, and provided medical information regarding his readiness to attend a hearing.

The Tribunal noted that its rules do not permit appeals or reconsiderations of interim decisions, but provided further explanation for refusing the additional witnesses, noting they lacked direct knowledge of the material events.

The Tribunal scheduled the hearing for two days to focus solely on the applicant's evidence, with accommodations for breaks as recommended by his doctors.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding sought to add nine new witnesses to his witness list and requested that the hearing be rescheduled to November 2011.

The hearing had previously been adjourned three times due to the applicant's medical circumstances, and the Tribunal had ordered him to provide medical documentation regarding his ability to participate and any necessary accommodations.

The Tribunal denied the request to add witnesses, finding that the passage of time did not justify expanding the evidence and that the proposed witnesses were duplicative or irrelevant.

The Tribunal also declined to schedule the hearing without the required medical documentation, ordering the applicant to provide it by August 30, 2011, and warning that failure to do so could result in the dismissal of the application due to delay and prejudice to the respondent.

The applicant, a visiting university student with a learning disability, alleged that the respondent university discriminated against her on the basis of disability and citizenship.

She claimed the university failed to accommodate her by refusing to provide subject-matter tutoring, that her professors discriminated against her, and that bursary eligibility criteria discriminated based on citizenship.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the university made reasonable efforts to accommodate her up to the point of undue hardship, the professors' actions were based on legitimate academic concerns rather than discrimination, and the citizenship requirement for bursaries fell under the exception in subsection 16(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that the university's student code of conduct discriminated on the basis of age because it did not apply to professors.

A summary hearing was scheduled to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to attend the teleconference hearing without explanation.

The Tribunal found that the applicant received proper notice and dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the hearing until May or June 2011 due to medical issues, specifically sleep apnea and chronic depression, as well as work-related concerns.

The respondent objected to a delay beyond mid-April 2011, citing prejudice from the passage of time and scheduling conflicts for its witnesses.

The Tribunal found that the medical evidence supported an adjournment to mid-April 2011 and that further delay for work or preparation reasons was unjustified.

The hearing was adjourned to mid-April 2011.

The respondents brought a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking the early dismissal of the human rights application on the basis that it was an abuse of process.

The applicant had engaged in extensive, duplicative litigation across multiple forums, including grievances, OLRB applications, and judicial reviews, repeatedly making unfounded allegations of bias and impropriety against decision-makers and opposing counsel.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was a vexatious litigant who was maintaining the proceeding for the ulterior purpose of harassing the respondents and preventing his termination.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.