Laura K. Williams

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing after retaining counsel at a late date and failing to comply with the Tribunal's disclosure rules.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, noting that late retention of counsel does not generally constitute exceptional circumstances.

However, the Tribunal granted a brief extension for the applicant to file and deliver hearing documents and witness statements.

The respondent in a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking production of the applicant's wage, pay, and employment search records.

The adjudicator declined to decide the request in writing on the eve of the hearing, noting that the applicant had already produced some materials.

The request for further production was adjourned to be heard orally at the outset of the scheduled hearing on the merits.

The applicant in a human rights complaint alleging discrimination in employment because of disability requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing.

The applicant sought the adjournment on the basis that she required further documentary disclosure from the respondent.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the hearing had been scheduled for nearly four months, the applicant had not made a formal request for production of documents, and the issue of production could be dealt with without delaying the hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of age, record of offences, and reprisal.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations of discrimination based on record of offences, reprisal, and general unfairness, finding no facts pleaded to support them.

However, the Tribunal allowed the applicant's amended allegations regarding the respondent's failure to accommodate his age-related needs and hearing disability to proceed to an evidentiary hearing, directing the applicant to provide full particulars.

The applicants filed human rights applications against a school principal and a daycare executive director.

In an interim decision, the Tribunal addressed preliminary issues.

The Tribunal ordered the applicants' parents to provide written permission for the principal to access the applicants' Ontario Student Records, failing which the applications against her would be dismissed as an abuse of process; the parents complied before the deadline.

The Tribunal dismissed the applications against the daycare executive director on the basis of delay, finding they were filed outside the one-year time limit and the applicants failed to demonstrate the delay was incurred in good faith.

The applicants filed human rights applications alleging discrimination by a school principal and a daycare executive director.

They subsequently filed multiple requests to add a total of 91 additional individual respondents, including police officers, Children's Aid Society workers, and a journalist.

The Tribunal denied the requests, finding that the applicants failed to provide reasons for adding the individuals, failed to deliver the requests to the proposed respondents, and failed to provide contact information as required by the Tribunal's rules.

The applicant, a Black woman, alleged that she was racially profiled and falsely accused of shoplifting by a plainclothes security guard at a grocery store.

After the applicant presented her evidence at the hearing, the respondents moved to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found significant credibility issues in the applicant's evidence, including contradictions regarding who accompanied her and why she returned items to the shelves.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination and dismissed the application.

The applicant employer filed an application regarding an alleged unlawful strike and an unfair labour practice complaint against the responding union and individuals.

After the applicant completed its case, the Board raised concerns about its jurisdiction, noting that the activities complained of might not meet the statutory definition of a strike under the Labour Relations Act, 1995, but might fall under the broader definition of a labour dispute in the Courts of Justice Act.

The applicant sought an adjournment sine die to consider its options and choice of venue.

Over the union's objection, the Board granted the adjournment sine die for a period not exceeding one year.