Kecia Podetz

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability against the Rideau Hill Camp Council and the United Church of Canada.

A preliminary hearing was held to determine whether the Church was properly named as a respondent.

The Tribunal reviewed the Camp's by-laws and found that the Church exercised a significant degree of control over the Camp, including restrictions on property transactions and financial indebtedness.

The Tribunal concluded that the Church should remain a respondent, as it could potentially be held liable for the actions of the Camp under s. 46.3(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The respondents requested the removal of four individual respondents from a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on sex and sexual orientation.

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal found insufficient allegations against one individual respondent and removed her as a party.

However, the Tribunal denied the request to remove the remaining three individual respondents, finding sufficient allegations of harassment that could attract personal liability.

The respondents requested an order removing the individual respondent from the human rights application.

Applying the factors from Persaud v. Toronto District School Board, the Tribunal found that the individual respondent was alleged to have personally engaged in discrimination by failing to accommodate the applicant, rather than merely acting as an instrument of the corporate respondent.

The Tribunal concluded it may be appropriate to make an order against him personally if an infringement is found.

The request to remove the individual respondent was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment more than one year after her termination.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed for delay.

The applicant argued the delay was incurred in good faith due to severe depression and anxiety.

The Tribunal found the medical evidence insufficient to establish that her condition prevented her from filing on time, noting she had retained counsel to send a demand letter within the one-year period.

The application was dismissed for failing to meet the statutory time limit.

The respondent requested the removal of a named personal respondent and the dismissal of the application for delay.

The Tribunal granted the request to remove the personal respondent, finding no compelling reason to proceed against him individually as the corporate respondent would be vicariously liable for his actions.

Regarding the request to dismiss for delay, the Tribunal scheduled a teleconference hearing to hear submissions and evidence on whether the applicant's delay in filing was incurred in good faith and without substantial prejudice.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex and age, claiming he was refused teaching assignments.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because the applicant had an ongoing grievance based on the same facts scheduled for arbitration.

The Tribunal found significant overlap between the application and the grievance, and deferred the application to avoid inconsistent findings of fact and duplication of resources.

The respondent brought a Request for Order during Proceedings to remove four individually named respondents from a human rights application alleging age and disability discrimination.

Applying the Persaud test, the Tribunal found that the organizational respondent admitted vicarious liability and had the ability to remedy any Code infringements.

The Tribunal granted the request and removed the individual respondents from the application.