Alix Herber

The respondent requested detailed particulars regarding the applicant's allegations of discrimination during lease expense negotiations.

The applicant opposed the request, arguing the pleadings were sufficient and the request resembled civil discovery.

The Tribunal found that most of the requested particulars could be answered after standard disclosure or during cross-examination.

However, the Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide specific particulars regarding the nature of its challenge to the Leasing Guidelines, the identity of comparator clinics, and the exact compensation sought.

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation, claiming he required early production of video footage as an accommodation to refresh his memory.

The respondent requested the Application be dismissed due to the non-attendance.

The Tribunal denied the respondent's request to dismiss, finding non-attendance alone is not a valid reason for dismissal.

The Tribunal also denied the applicant's production request, finding it premature, lacking medical support for the accommodation claim, and moot since the respondent confirmed no such video footage exists.

The respondents brought a request for an order during proceedings to remove the personal respondent, the President and CEO of Legal Aid Ontario, from the human rights application.

The applicant opposed the request, arguing the personal respondent was the directing mind of the organization.

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal found no compelling reason to continue the proceeding against the personal respondent, as the organizational respondent conceded vicarious liability and the applicant sought no remedy that only the personal respondent could provide.

The request to remove the personal respondent was granted.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the human rights application and, alternatively, an adjournment of the scheduled hearing on the merits because its newly retained counsel had a pre-existing travel conflict.

The Tribunal denied the request for a summary hearing.

The Tribunal also denied the adjournment request, finding that retaining new counsel who is unavailable on a previously scheduled hearing date does not constitute an exceptional circumstance warranting an adjournment.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because its human resources manager, a key witness, was on an extended pregnancy and parental leave.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting its policy against adjournments absent extraordinary circumstances.

The Tribunal found that adjourning the matter for almost a year was not fair, just, or expeditious, as another witness might be able to testify, the hearing could commence with the applicant's case, and the respondent could renew its request after the applicant's case closed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming the respondents failed to accommodate his medical restrictions upon his return from a medical leave.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the applicant had already commenced a civil action seeking remedies for the same alleged Code infringements.

The Tribunal found that the civil action arose from the same facts and sought remedies for the same alleged Code violations.

The Tribunal held that section 34(11) acts as a mandatory bar to the application, even though the individual respondents were not named in the civil action.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of sex in the receipt of services, claiming he received differential treatment as a man applying for a legal aid certificate for a family law dispute.

After hearing the applicant's evidence, the respondent requested the application be dismissed for failing to establish a prima facie case.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's evidence did not show his gender was a factor in the respondent's decisions regarding his certificate or requests for financial information.

The application was dismissed for failing to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.