Lauren Cowl

The respondent Centennial College requested an order to remove the personal respondents from the human rights application.

The applicant did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal applied the Persaud factors and found that the corporate respondents were deemed liable for the actions of their employees under section 46.3(1) of the Human Rights Code.

As there were no allegations of individual wrongdoing that would warrant a specific remedy against the personal respondents, the Tribunal ordered their removal from the proceeding.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, and ethnic origin.

The respondent, Centennial College, requested to add Paladin Security as a respondent, arguing the applicant was employed by Paladin Security, which provided on-site security services.

The Tribunal applied the Smyth factors and granted the request to add Paladin Security.

The Tribunal also declined to defer the application, as the applicant's union grievance was being held in abeyance pending the outcome of the human rights application.

Finally, the Tribunal upheld its decision to grant the union intervenor status, noting the union's clear interest in the matter.

The respondent employer filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to dismiss the human rights application on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success and did not set out a prima facie case of discrimination based on disability.

The applicant did not file a response.

The Tribunal declined to schedule a summary hearing and dismissed the respondent's request, directing that the matter proceed in the normal course.

The appellant appealed two orders dismissing and adjourning its application for an interpretation of an Ontario Regulation regarding the 2008 remuneration of Justices of the Peace.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the proper mechanism to challenge the government's response to a remuneration commission's recommendation is through judicial review on a standard of rationality, not by seeking an interpretation of the implementing Regulation.

The applicant brought a Request for an Order During Proceeding for the production of documents in the respondents' possession, alleging that the respondents were selectively deciding what was relevant.

The respondents maintained they had disclosed all arguably relevant documents, including the entire employment file.

The Tribunal found the requested documents arguably relevant but declined to issue the order, as there was no evidence the respondents were withholding any documents.