André Nowakowski

The applicant filed an Application alleging the respondent breached a settlement agreement by failing to revise accessibility policies and train staff regarding Deaf, Deafened, and Hard of Hearing patients.

The Tribunal found the Application was filed outside the six-month limitation period under s. 45.9(3) of the Human Rights Code and that the applicant failed to provide a good faith explanation for the delay.

The Tribunal also noted that, in any event, the respondent had complied with the settlement terms by reviewing its policies and implementing mandatory staff training.

The Application was dismissed.

The applicant requested an order during proceedings to amend her human rights application to include additional facts regarding her termination of employment and interactions with Service Canada.

The respondents did not oppose the request but did not concede relevance.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend the application, noting the lack of opposition and considering the nature, reasons, timing, and prejudice factors.

The respondent requested an order dismissing parts of a human rights application that alleged the applicant was enticed away from his former employer and subjected to non-Code-related workplace violence and harassment.

The Tribunal held that allegations of enticement and reliance on employer representations are not relevant to a Code violation or remedy.

Similarly, the cause of a disability, including non-Code-related workplace violence, is not relevant unless the conduct itself violates the Code.

The Tribunal ordered that evidence regarding these allegations will not be received at the hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that the respondent hospital discriminated against her deceased daughter on the basis of disability (intravenous drug use) by providing inadequate medical care.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal found that the applicant could not point to any evidence beyond her own suspicions to establish a link between the alleged inadequate care and her daughter's disability.

The application was dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.

The respondents brought a motion to remove the individual respondent, a store manager, from the human rights application and to revise the deadline for disclosing expert witnesses.

The applicant alleged the manager assaulted him and made discriminatory comments about his disability during a dispute over groceries.

The Tribunal dismissed the request to remove the individual respondent, finding his alleged conduct was the central issue in the case.

The Tribunal also dismissed the request to revise the expert witness disclosure deadline as premature.

The employer requested an amendment to a Tribunal direction requiring it to mail a Notice to Employees to all affected former employees, arguing that manually searching for the addresses of 400 former employees not in its computerized system would be overly burdensome.

The Tribunal denied the request, holding that natural justice requires all affected employees to be notified so they are bound by the outcome of the successor rights proceeding.

However, the Tribunal extended the deadline for compliance from 15 to 60 days.