Christina Donszelmann

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the conclusion of an ongoing grievance proceeding.

The respondent consented to the deferral, but the applicant objected, arguing the grievance would take years.

The Tribunal deferred the application, noting the substantial overlap in facts and issues, and the risk of inconsistent decisions if both proceedings ran concurrently.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination during his time in provincial custody.

The last alleged incident occurred in August 2011, but the application was not filed until January 2014, well beyond the one-year time limit under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal considered whether the delay was incurred in good faith under section 34(2).

The applicant cited his incarceration, lack of resources, and medical conditions as reasons for the delay.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had previously filed detailed complaints with the Ombudsman Ontario and had failed to complete an earlier human rights application despite being given ample time.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not provide a reasonable explanation for the delay and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability arising from two interactions with OPP officers regarding his use of medical marijuana at a court house.

The respondents requested dismissal of the first incident due to delay.

The Tribunal found that the two incidents, which occurred seven months apart and involved different officers, did not constitute a 'series of incidents' under s. 34(1)(b) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal also found that the applicant's delay in filing was not incurred in good faith under s. 34(2), as waiting for the conclusion of an OIPRD investigation is not a valid reason for delay.

The first incident was dismissed.

Additionally, the Tribunal addressed the applicant's request to smoke medical marijuana inside the hearing room, ruling that he would be accommodated by taking breaks to smoke outside.

The applicant filed an application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code alleging discrimination with respect to services.

The respondent requested dismissal of the application on the basis that many of the events were untimely.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to file a Reply to the Response and warned that failure to do so could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to file any submissions.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant alleged workplace discrimination and reprisal.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance was appropriately dealt with in prior grievance proceedings before the Grievance Settlement Board (GSB).

The applicant argued the settlement of her first grievance was obtained under duress and the mediation-arbitration of her second grievance was unfair.

The Tribunal found no evidence of economic duress and concluded that the GSB proceedings appropriately dealt with the discrimination allegations, which were therefore dismissed.

However, the reprisal allegations postdated the GSB proceedings and were permitted to proceed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging workplace discrimination and harassment on the basis of race and colour.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because the applicant had already initiated a workplace grievance raising the exact same issues.

The Tribunal found significant overlap between the application and the grievance, and concluded that deferral was appropriate to avoid inconsistent findings and duplication of resources.

The application was deferred pending the conclusion of the grievance process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination while in custody at a provincial correctional facility.

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

The applicant failed to attend the hearing despite receiving proper notice and having access to a telephone at the facility.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.