Daniel B. Fogel

The parties each filed applications alleging the other breached the Minutes of Settlement resolving a prior human rights complaint.

The applicant alleged the respondent failed to immediately examine partnering with the Township for parking by-law enforcement.

The respondent alleged the applicant breached confidentiality by discussing the settlement with the Mayor and a Township employee.

The Tribunal dismissed both applications, finding the respondent took appropriate steps to implement the agreement and the applicant did not disclose confidential information or did so with the respondent's waiver.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend his human rights application to add details regarding an alleged breach of the collective agreement and to increase the monetary compensation claimed.

The respondent consented to the request and the intervenor took no position.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting that the applicant was not seeking to add new grounds of discrimination or new parties.

The applicant requested an order during proceedings to amend her human rights application to include additional details about her relationship with the personal respondent and to add an allegation of reprisal.

The respondents objected on the basis that the applicant failed to file a separate schedule of proposed amendments as previously directed.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, finding that the proposed amendments were reasonably clear from the request and that there was no prejudice to the respondents, who were permitted to file an amended response.

The respondent employer requested the dismissal or deferral of a human rights application alleging age discrimination, arguing that the applicant had commenced a parallel civil action for wrongful dismissal.

The Tribunal found that section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code did not bar the application because the civil action did not seek remedies for discrimination.

However, given the substantial factual overlap and the potential for inconsistent findings, the Tribunal exercised its discretion to defer the human rights application pending the conclusion of the civil proceeding.