Joanna S. Rainbow

The applicant filed two human rights applications against York University and its employee, Jennifer Dalton.

The applicant requested that the applications be consolidated and the upcoming hearing adjourned.

The respondents agreed to the consolidation and adjournment but also requested that the first application be dismissed as abandoned because the applicant missed a deadline to confirm her in-person attendance.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss, accepting the applicant's explanation for the delay.

The Tribunal granted the request to consolidate the applications and adjourned the hearing to allow pleadings to close and mediation to occur.

The applicant requested that her scheduled in-person hearing be converted to a telephone hearing because she did not want to see the respondent.

The respondent opposed the request, arguing that credibility was a key issue and required in-person attendance.

The Tribunal denied the applicant's request, finding that assessing credibility would be difficult over the telephone and that the applicant had not provided any Code-related reasons to justify her absence.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability and age.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred because the applicant had also filed multiple union grievances based on the same facts and human rights issues.

The Tribunal found that there was substantial overlap between the application and the ongoing grievances.

To avoid duplication of proceedings and conflicting determinations, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the arbitration process.

The applicant alleged that the respondent university discriminated against him on the basis of disability, race, and sexual orientation by failing to accommodate his mental health needs and assist with his OSAP disability bursary.

At the hearing, the Tribunal narrowed the issue to whether the respondent failed to accommodate the applicant's disability.

The Tribunal found that the applicant falsified a medical report from his treating physician to indicate his disability was permanent rather than temporary.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he had a disability requiring accommodation at the material time, as his evidence lacked credibility and the medical documents were unreliable.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing, citing a medical condition, and filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings (RFOP) seeking document production and an order prohibiting the respondent from using his information.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding the provided medical notes did not support the inability to attend.

The Tribunal also denied the RFOP, as the applicant failed to demonstrate the relevance of the requested documents and the prohibition request had been addressed in a previous interim decision.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order during Proceedings seeking to restrict the respondent from seeking and communicating information about him to various entities.

The respondent opposed the request on jurisdictional grounds.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the order sought was in the nature of injunctive relief, which goes beyond the Tribunal's mandate and powers.

The applicant in a human rights complaint alleging housing discrimination based on disability filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking production of all internal communications pertaining to his transfer request, himself, and marijuana.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding it overbroad, non-specific, and amounting to a fishing expedition, as the applicant provided no basis to believe relevant unproduced documents existed.

Following a finding that the respondent university failed to provide reading materials in an accessible format to a visually impaired student in a timely manner, the Tribunal determined the appropriate remedy.

The Tribunal denied claims for tuition and medical expenses, finding the delay did not materially cause the applicant's failure to complete the program or her medical issues.

Applying the Arunachalam criteria, the Tribunal assessed damages for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect at $5,000.

However, the Tribunal reduced the award by $1,500 due to the applicant's misconduct in submitting a misleading medical report during the hearing, resulting in a final award of $3,500.

The applicant, a university student with a visual impairment, alleged discrimination by the university and several faculty members regarding the accommodation of her disability in a consecutive education program.

The Tribunal found that the university's failure to provide textbooks and course materials in an accessible format in a timely manner amounted to discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the applicant's other allegations, finding that her failure to successfully complete her practicum placements and course work was not related to her disability or a lack of accommodation.

The applicant, who self-identifies as having a cognitive disability, filed a human rights application alleging that York University's Osgoode Hall Law School discriminated against him by requiring an LSAT score and refusing to waive it.

The respondent brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the application for failing to state a prima facie case.

The Tribunal found that because the applicant never actually applied to the law school, the requirement was never imposed on him, making the application premature.

The Tribunal also found that the law school's website description of its Access Applicant Category did not indicate an intention to discriminate.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a university student with a cognitive disability and hearing impairment, alleged that the university and several instructors discriminated against her on the basis of disability and creed.

She claimed she received lower marks and was expelled from the social work program due to a failure to accommodate her disabilities and because of her religious views on gay marriage.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no evidence that the applicant's disabilities or creed were connected to her academic performance or the treatment she received from her instructors.