Jessica M. Connell

The respondents requested a reconsideration of an interim decision that allowed the applicant's allegation regarding a racial slur on a bulletin board to proceed.

The respondents argued the allegation was untimely under s. 34(1) of the Human Rights Code and that the interim decision failed to provide reasons on this issue.

The Tribunal found that while the interim decision was subject to reconsideration, the respondents did not meet the threshold criteria.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, noting the interim decision was based on preliminary submissions and the respondents could still raise the timeliness issue at the hearing on the merits.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing based on race, colour, and disability, as well as reprisal.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether the allegations had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the majority of the allegations, including those related to transfer requests, cleaning duties, parking, and vandalism, finding no evidence linking the events to Code grounds.

However, the Tribunal allowed the allegations regarding racially offensive and disability-related notes posted on the applicant's door and a bulletin board to proceed, finding that the issue of whether they created a poisoned environment required a full hearing on the merits.

Stewart Title Guaranty Company, as a third party, brought a motion seeking an order to conduct invasive inspections of the plaintiffs' property to assess building deficiencies and repair costs.

The plaintiffs opposed, citing concerns about invasiveness and potential damage.

The court granted the motion under Rule 32.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, finding the inspection necessary for the proper determination of damages.

The court emphasized that Stewart Title's undertaking to restore the property to its previous condition alleviated the plaintiffs' concerns regarding potential damage from the invasive testing.

The complainant workers suffered from chronic pain and received a fixed compensation award from the Workers' Compensation Board.

They appealed to the Board's Review Division, arguing the policy was discriminatory under the Human Rights Code.

The Review Officer concluded the policy was not discriminatory.

Instead of seeking judicial review, the complainants filed new complaints with the Human Rights Tribunal.

The Tribunal refused to dismiss the complaints under s. 27(1)(f) of the Code.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Tribunal's decision was patently unreasonable because it ignored the principles of finality and the rule against collateral attack, effectively allowing the relitigation of an issue already decided by a decision-maker with concurrent jurisdiction.