Laurie Letheren

The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application against the respondent university for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant alleged the university failed to accommodate his post-concussion syndrome during a comprehensive exam.

The Tribunal denied the request for reconsideration, finding that the original adjudicator did not depart from established jurisprudence when she concluded the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence linking the adverse impact he experienced to his disability.

Several public interest organizations sought leave to intervene as friends of the court on a motion to strike a constitutional application alleging that federal and provincial housing policies violated sections 7 and 15 of the Charter by failing to ensure adequate housing.

The proposed interveners argued they could provide perspectives relating to poverty, disability, housing policy, international human rights obligations, and constitutional remedies.

The court emphasized that intervention on a Rule 21 motion is exceptional and requires a showing that the intervener will make a useful legal contribution beyond the parties’ submissions without prejudicing the proceeding.

Interventions focused primarily on social context or policy impacts were rejected because the motion concerned a narrow legal question regarding whether the application disclosed a reasonable cause of action.

The court granted limited intervention status to three groups with specific expertise relevant to Charter interpretation, international human rights law, and constitutional remedies, while dismissing the remaining intervention motions.

The respondents filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to remove the named personal respondent, Martin Stampfli, from a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability.

The applicant took no position.

Applying the factors from Sigrist and Persaud, the Tribunal found that the corporate respondent, McMaster University, had expressly assumed vicarious liability for the personal respondent's conduct, which occurred in the course of his employment.

Finding no compelling reason to proceed against the individual and no prejudice to the applicant, the Tribunal ordered the personal respondent removed from the proceeding.

The applicants brought a human rights application alleging that certain City of Toronto zoning by-laws discriminate against persons with disabilities by limiting the availability of supportive housing.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission filed a Notice of Intervention with the applicants' consent under section 37(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The City objected, arguing the Tribunal should first determine its preliminary jurisdictional challenges.

The Tribunal dismissed the City's objection, holding that under section 37(2), the Commission is entitled to intervene as of right as a full party and does not merely request permission.

The complainant, a student with disabilities, filed a human rights complaint alleging the school board and several individuals failed to accommodate his needs.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed three preliminary issues.

The Tribunal denied the complainant's request to add another teacher as a personal respondent, finding no meaningful procedural or substantive benefit.

The Tribunal also dismissed the respondents' objection to the scope of the Commission's statement of facts, ruling that the new allegations formed part of the continuum of events related to the alleged failure to accommodate.

Finally, the Tribunal granted the complainant's request to file his own statement of facts, issues, and remedy, as the respondents demonstrated no prejudice.