Kathleen Stokes

The appellant filed motions with the Child and Family Services Review Board appealing a school board's decision to expel a student.

The appellant argued the expulsion should be overturned because the decision was not made within the 20-day statutory timeline and notice was not provided promptly.

The Board dismissed the timeliness motion, finding the decision was made on the twentieth day and notice was provided promptly the following day.

The Board granted the appellant's motions to expedite the hearing on the merits and ordered the school board to disclose written and videotaped evidence to ensure procedural fairness.

The appellant sought an extension of time to appeal a school board's decision to expel his son.

The appeal was filed two and a half months after the statutory 30-day deadline.

The appellant argued the delay was justified because the school board failed to provide adequate reasons for the expulsion.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the appeal, finding that the adequacy of the school board's reasons was irrelevant to the de novo appeal process and that the delay prejudiced the school board's need for certainty and stability.

The respondent school board requested to defer the applicant's human rights application pending the outcome of several union grievances filed on her behalf.

The grievances alleged a failure to accommodate during the back-to-work process, which overlapped with the facts and issues raised in the human rights application.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that deferral was appropriate to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions, as the grievance process could adequately address the human rights issues and provide the requested remedies.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred because a union grievance based on the same facts and issues had been filed on the applicant's behalf and referred to arbitration.

The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the application and the grievance and deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process.

The parties submitted a consent request to adjourn a scheduled hearing because one of the respondent's witnesses was unavailable.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario denied the request, noting that absent exceptional circumstances, consent adjournments are not granted.

The Tribunal found that the unavailability of one witness was not exceptional, as the applicant bore the onus to proceed first and other witnesses could testify.

The Tribunal extended the deadline for filing hearing documents.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to housing.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision addressing two preliminary matters.

First, on consent of the parties, Dave Boucher was removed as a respondent.

Second, the respondents argued the application was filed outside the one-year time limit under section 34(1)(a) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the application was filed by email within the one-year time limit, and the later date recorded by the Tribunal was an administrative error.

The Tribunal ordered the application to proceed.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the applicant's human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal in the termination of his employment.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) requested intervenor status.

The Tribunal denied the respondents' request for a summary hearing without reasons, pursuant to Rule 19A.5.

The Tribunal granted CUPE intervenor status, noting that a union generally has an interest in human rights applications brought by bargaining unit members.

The applicant, a transsexual woman, alleged discrimination based on sex after being denied access to the respondent's women's shelter and being asked inappropriate personal questions.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed production requests from both parties.

Applying the arguable relevance test, the Tribunal ordered the applicant to produce particulars regarding her location, the device used to record the phone call, and her phone records, but declined to order disclosure of her alleged abuser's name due to safety concerns.

The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's request for the respondent's employee's name and found the respondent had provided sufficient particulars regarding its practices.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability (a sleep disorder) following his termination for sleeping on the job.

The application was filed 22 months after the termination, which was 10 months beyond the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine whether the delay was incurred in good faith.

The Tribunal found that the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee, acting for the applicant, had reason to make inquiries about the applicant's Code rights by April 2008 but failed to file the application until April 2009, instead pursuing other avenues of redress.

The Tribunal concluded the delay was not incurred in good faith and dismissed the application as out of time.

The member, an elementary school teacher, pled no contest to allegations of professional misconduct stemming from an inappropriate relationship with a student.

The member communicated with the student electronically and kissed the student in his vehicle, leading to a criminal conviction for sexual assault.

The Discipline Committee found the member guilty of professional misconduct, including sexual abuse of a student.

The Committee ordered the immediate revocation of the member's teaching certificate and publication of the decision with the member's name.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision dismissing his application for failing to establish a prima facie case of discrimination based on sexual orientation.

He alleged the respondent's programs targeting heterosexism and sexual minorities discriminated against heterosexuals.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no reasonable prospect of success, as education about heterosexism is not discriminatory and programs targeting disadvantaged groups are protected as special programs under s. 14(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant, who self-identifies as heterosexual, filed a human rights application alleging that the respondent, an HIV/AIDS organization, discriminated against him and other heterosexuals by being homocentric and excluding them from its services.

At a case resolution conference, after hearing the applicant's oral evidence, the respondent requested that the application be dismissed.

The adjudicator found that the respondent's targeted programs for vulnerable populations did not exclude heterosexuals from its general services, and the applicant admitted he had always felt welcomed by the organization.

The application was dismissed because the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.

The applicant sought judicial review of the respondent college's decision to involuntarily withdraw her from its nursing program for breaching an Academic Behaviour Contract.

The applicant argued she was denied procedural fairness and natural justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant was afforded procedural fairness, as she was advised of the allegations and given the opportunity to respond before both the Academic Administrator and the Vice President (Academic).