Carol VandenHoek

The applicant, a person with a disability, alleged that the respondent Town discriminated against him by requiring a railing next to his hot tub, which would impede his access to the deck in a medical emergency, and through discriminatory treatment by Town officials.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and found that neither the Town by-laws nor the Building Code required a railing for the deck's elevation change.

Furthermore, communications from Town officials merely advised the applicant of compliance options and did not support a claim of discriminatory treatment.

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

The respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking an order to compel the applicant to produce all arguably relevant documents in accordance with Rule 16.1 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting the importance of disclosure for a fair and timely hearing.

The applicant was ordered to comply within 7 days, failing which the Application could be dismissed as abandoned or the applicant could be barred from calling witnesses.

The respondent requested the early dismissal of a human rights application alleging discrimination regarding inaccessible premises.

The respondent argued the application should be dismissed under section 53(8) of the Human Rights Code because the applicant had pursued similar allegations against other businesses.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that section 53(8) only applies where a previous complaint was filed against the same respondent or a related entity, which was not the case here.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of record of offences.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction noting that the applicant had answered 'No' to whether he was discriminated against because of a conviction.

The applicant's submissions confirmed that his termination was unrelated to a conviction for an offence under federal or provincial law, and he argued the Tribunal should protect individuals who do not fall into specific categories.

The Tribunal dismissed the application at a preliminary stage, finding it plain and obvious that the allegations did not fall within the prohibited grounds of the Human Rights Code and were therefore outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming she was unable to return to work after witnessing a workplace assault due to the respondents' failure to address the poisoned work environment.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant was attempting to use the duty to accommodate to force the respondents to address general workplace harassment issues that do not fall under the Human Rights Code.

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