Jinan Kubursi

The applicant requested an order during proceedings to amend his human rights application to increase the monetary remedies sought to $15,000.

The respondent did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal granted the amendment, noting that the applicant was not seeking to add new grounds of discrimination or new parties, and finding no prejudice to the respondent.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend her human rights application to include allegations of reprisal, specifically a reassignment decision.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the vague allegations lacked particulars and the specific reassignment allegation was brought less than a month before the scheduled hearing, which would prejudice the respondent.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on race and other grounds arising from a police traffic stop.

The applicant had previously filed a complaint under the Police Services Act (PSA) which was investigated and found to be unsubstantiated.

The respondent police services and officers brought a request for an order during proceedings to dismiss the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the PSA process appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

Alternatively, they requested the matter be deferred pending a judicial review in a similar case.

The Tribunal denied the request to defer, finding no compelling reason to delay the proceedings.

Following its previous decision in Claybourn and the Supreme Court's decision in Penner, the Tribunal also dismissed the request to dismiss under section 45.1, concluding that the PSA complaints process did not appropriately deal with the substance of the human rights application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging failure to accommodate his disability, while concurrently pursuing a union grievance based on the same facts.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the resolution of the grievance.

Finding substantial overlap between the application and the ongoing grievance, the Tribunal exercised its discretion to defer the application until the conclusion of the grievance process.

The respondents requested that the human rights applications be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code on the basis that the applicants' prior public complaints under the Police Services Act appropriately dealt with the substance of the applications.

The Tribunal considered the Supreme Court of Canada's decisions in Figliola and Penner.

The Tribunal held that section 45.1 should not be interpreted to bar a Code application where doing so would result in an affront to basic principles of fairness.

Given the lack of personal remedies in the police disciplinary process and the broader policy implications, the Tribunal found it would be unfair to preclude the applicants from pursuing their human rights claims.

The respondents' requests to dismiss the applications were denied, and the applications were allowed to proceed.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of a certiorari application seeking removal of his name from the provincial sex offender registry.

The Court of Appeal held that the Criminal Proceedings Rules do not apply to a provincial registry maintained under provincial law.

The application should have been made to the Divisional Court under the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

The judge below lacked jurisdiction, so his decision was quashed, and the appeal was also quashed.

The appellant Ontario Provincial Police appealed a decision of the Ontario Civilian Police Commission that substituted a penalty of demotion for the immediate dismissal of the respondent police officer.

The officer had previously pled guilty to criminal charges and discreditable conduct for stealing gasoline and office supplies.

The Divisional Court found that the Commission reasonably concluded the Hearing Officer erred by disregarding positive character evidence, focusing on irrelevant medical issues, and failing to properly consider rehabilitation.

The appeal was dismissed, upholding the penalty of demotion.

The applicant sought a remedy following a finding that she experienced age discrimination in employment when her manager made comments encouraging her to retire.

The applicant sought $20,000 for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect, while the respondents suggested an award between $1,500 and $7,500.

The Tribunal awarded $7,000, finding that while the objective seriousness of the conduct was at the low end, the comments had a greater impact on the applicant due to her overall circumstances.

The Tribunal also denied the respondents' request to remove the personal respondents from the style of cause, though it clarified that the corporate respondent was solely liable for the monetary compensation.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of race, colour, and place of origin by an OPP officer during a traffic stop and vehicle safety inspection.

The officer removed the applicant's license plates after determining the vehicle was unsafe and stepped on them to flatten jagged edges.

The applicant claimed this was done to intimidate him based on his past interactions with police.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the officer's non-discriminatory explanations for his actions credible and the applicant's theory improbable.

The respondent requested an adjournment of a scheduled summary hearing due to a scheduling conflict that arose for counsel.

The applicant consented to the adjournment.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that under its Practice Direction, adjournments are only granted in exceptional circumstances, even on consent.

The respondent failed to demonstrate any exceptional circumstances to justify the late adjournment request.

The applicant, a 60-year-old public servant on secondment, alleged age discrimination, harassment, and a poisoned work environment after she was not selected for a permanent position and subsequently retired.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's manager discriminated against her on the basis of age by repeatedly encouraging her to retire and discouraging her from applying for the permanent position.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the allegations that the hiring process itself was discriminatory, that a poisoned work environment was created, and that the employer failed to properly investigate her internal complaint.

The hearing was bifurcated, and a subsequent hearing was ordered to determine damages for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect arising from the discriminatory comments.

The applicant filed an application alleging age discrimination in employment against the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services and several individual respondents.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed multiple requests for orders during proceedings.

The Tribunal removed the individual respondents, finding no compelling reason to maintain them as parties since the corporate respondent would be liable for their conduct.

The Tribunal permitted the applicant to amend her application to clarify her allegations and add subsequent competitions, but denied her requests for a Tribunal-ordered inquiry, early production of documents, and an order requiring the Human Rights Legal Support Centre to represent her.

The applicant, a police inspector, brought an application for judicial review challenging the refusal of the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services to investigate his allegations of police misconduct, and the Minister's refusal to request such an investigation.

The Commission and the Minister brought a motion to dismiss the application against them.

The Divisional Court granted the motion to dismiss, finding that the applicant lacked standing because the Police Services Act does not grant him the right to request an investigation.

Furthermore, the court held that even if the applicant had standing, the application could not succeed because the respondents owed no duty to the applicant, their decisions did not affect his legal rights, and the remedies of mandamus, certiorari, and judicial review of a statutory power of decision were therefore unavailable.

The applicant sought production of records relating to allegations of discrimination at a correctional facility.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario ordered the respondent to produce redacted inmate records, finding them arguably relevant to the application.

However, the Tribunal denied the production of workplace discrimination and grievance records involving staff, as the applicant failed to establish a nexus to the issues in dispute.

The Tribunal also dismissed the respondent's request to bifurcate the hearing into individual and systemic phases, concluding it would not be an efficient way to proceed.

The applicant alleged racial discrimination in his treatment while in detention at Maplehurst Correctional Centre, specifically regarding disciplinary actions and solitary confinement for alleged misconduct.

The respondent raised a jurisdictional objection, arguing that the Superintendent's decisions in misconduct hearings are statutory decision-making functions and not a 'service' under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal held that the Superintendent's function is overwhelmingly administrative rather than adjudicative, and therefore the misconduct decisions are 'services' within the meaning of the Code and are not immune from Code review.

The respondent's request for partial dismissal was denied.

The applicant, an inmate at a provincial jail, alleged discrimination on the basis of race and related grounds.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed several preliminary issues.

The Tribunal denied the applicant's request for a publication ban regarding his own identity, finding insufficient evidence that it would protect him from reprisal, but granted anonymization for his incarcerated witnesses.

The Tribunal denied the applicant's request for disclosure of potential inmate witnesses' names.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request for disclosure of similar-fact evidence regarding other racial discrimination complaints at the facility, subject to an in camera review by the adjudicator to balance probative value against privacy interests.

Finally, the Tribunal denied the respondent's motion to strike the applicant's Statement of Fact and Remedies, instead permitting the applicant to file an amended Application.

Constable Pigeau appealed a finding of guilt for unlawful or unnecessary exercise of authority and the resulting penalty of a loss of 16 hours off and directed training.

The misconduct arose from an incident where the officer made physical contact with a pedestrian he suspected of public intoxication, leading to an altercation and an unnecessary arrest.

The Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services upheld the finding of misconduct, applying a reasonableness standard of review and finding that the officer lacked legal justification for the physical contact.

However, the Commission found the penalty to be harsh and excessive, varying it to a reprimand and a requirement to attend refresher training on powers of arrest.

The complainant, a former police constable with the Peel Regional Police Services Board, sought to add the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) as a respondent to her human rights complaint.

The complaint alleged discrimination and reprisals by Peel after she left to join the OPP.

The Tribunal applied the Payne test and found that the facts alleged, if proven, could not lead to a finding that the OPP violated the complainant's rights under the Code.

Furthermore, adding the OPP at this stage would fundamentally alter the nature and scope of the complaint, contrary to the Tribunal's mandate to resolve matters fairly, justly, and expeditiously.

The request to add the OPP as a party was dismissed.

The appellant police officer appealed a disciplinary finding and penalty but failed to serve the complainant, who was a party to the original proceedings, with the Notice of Appeal or related materials.

The Commission held that the complainant is a party to the appeal and must be served.

To protect the complainant's rights without unduly prejudicing the appellant for counsel's oversight, the Commission ordered the appellant and respondent police service to serve the complainant within 21 days and adjourned the appeal.

Following an unsuccessful appeal regarding a police complaint, the successful respondent officer sought costs of $18,201.50.

The appellant argued that he pursued the appeal in good faith, had limited financial means, and that a large costs award would deter citizens from advancing legitimate complaints against the police.

The Divisional Court held that costs should follow the event but fixed the quantum at $4,000 all inclusive, considering the lack of complexity, the short hearing, the appellant's personal circumstances, and reasonable expectations.