Jordana Joseph

The respondents requested permission to use a court reporter to record the upcoming hearing and sought a waiver of the requirement to provide transcripts to the other parties and the Tribunal due to cost.

The Tribunal allowed the use of a court reporter but denied the waiver, ordering the respondents to provide transcripts at their own expense prior to final argument to ensure all parties have access to the most accurate record.

The Tribunal also noted the respondents' lack of objection to one expert witness and deferred a decision on their objection to another expert witness until the hearing.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates after discharging his previous counsel and retaining new counsel shortly before the hearing.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that this was the applicant's second adjournment request and that retaining new counsel who is unavailable for scheduled dates does not constitute an exceptional circumstance justifying an adjournment.

The Tribunal directed the hearing to proceed as scheduled, with medical evidence deferred pending a formal request for disclosure of clinical notes.

The respondent requested to reschedule the hearing dates because the assigned counsel was unavailable due to administrative errors.

The applicant opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that administrative errors and counsel unavailability do not constitute extraordinary circumstances under the Practice Direction, especially given the length of time until the hearing which allowed for reassignment of the file.

The applicant alleged discrimination based on disability when a doctor at a detention centre denied his request for specific prescription medications, resulting in withdrawal symptoms.

The respondent argued the decision was medical and the applicant lacked prescriptions.

After the applicant failed to comply with disclosure rules and confirmed he would not call his family doctor as a witness, the Tribunal held a summary hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success because the applicant could not prove a failure to accommodate without medical evidence establishing his disability-related needs.

The applicant, who was incarcerated on an immigration hold, requested an adjournment of his scheduled hearing dates.

He argued that his incarceration prevented him from accessing necessary documents, summonsing witnesses, and responding to the respondent's requests to dismiss the application.

The respondent took no position.

The Tribunal found extraordinary circumstances warranting an adjournment, as the applicant was unable to prepare for the hearing for reasons beyond his control.

The adjournment was granted, and a conference call was scheduled to address next steps.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be dismissed as an abuse of process.

The applicant repeatedly refused to accept the Tribunal's rulings regarding the scope of the hearing, insisting on litigating issues related to the Coroner's jurisdiction under the Coroners Act rather than discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's persistent refusal to follow directions and attempts to relitigate issues outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction thwarted efforts to deal with the merits.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging the respondent failed to accommodate his disability-related needs by denying him prescription medications during his incarceration.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed the applicant's requests for an adjournment and for the production of his former cell mates' contact information.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, finding the applicant's failure to contact witnesses and vague scheduling conflict did not constitute extraordinary circumstances.

The Tribunal also denied the production request, finding the cell mates' evidence would not be relevant.

The Tribunal directed the parties to be prepared to address whether the application has a reasonable prospect of success if the applicant fails to call his doctor as a witness.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of family status.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application had already been appropriately dealt with by the Grievance Settlement Board (GSB).

The Tribunal found that the human rights issues raised in the application were directly raised before and decided by the GSB following a four-day hearing.

The application was dismissed to avoid re-litigating issues already decided in the grievance process.

The appellant police officer appealed a finding of guilt and a penalty of a 3-day suspension for neglect of duty.

The charge arose after the officer allegedly told a subpoenaed witness in a careless driving trial that he did not need to stay, resulting in the charge being dismissed.

The appellant argued the Hearing Officer misapprehended evidence and erred in assessing witness credibility.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer's credibility assessments and factual findings were reasonable, supported by the evidence, and not void of evidentiary foundation.

The penalty was also upheld as appropriate.

The appellant police officer appealed a disciplinary conviction and penalty for neglect of duty.

The officer had been found guilty of failing to ensure a subpoenaed witness remained at court to testify in a careless driving prosecution, resulting in the charge being dismissed.

On appeal, the officer argued the Hearing Officer misapprehended the evidence and erred in assessing the credibility of the witness over the conflicting testimony of a court officer and the Crown Prosecutor.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer's credibility assessments and factual findings were reasonable and not void of evidentiary foundation.

The penalty of a 3-day suspension without pay was also upheld.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction for discreditable conduct and the resulting penalty of a 16-hour forfeiture of pay.

The conviction arose from the officer's failure to pay for a wood splitter purchased at an auction while off duty until after he was interviewed by Professional Standards.

The Commission upheld the conviction, finding that a valid public complaint had been initiated.

The Commission also upheld the 16-hour forfeiture penalty, finding it within the reasonable range given the officer's prior disciplinary history, but varied the penalty by deleting the specific directions regarding how and when the hours were to be served.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed a disciplinary conviction for discreditable conduct and the resulting penalty of a 16-hour forfeiture.

The conviction arose from an unpaid debt for snow removal services related to his secondary employment.

The Commission upheld the conviction, finding that the Hearing Officer properly applied the Police Services Act regarding the timeliness of the complaint and that there was sufficient evidence the appellant received the invoices.

However, the Commission varied the penalty to an 8-hour forfeiture, concluding that the original penalty was excessive for minor off-duty misconduct and that severe general deterrence was not required.