Julie Sicotte

The applicant filed a Request for Order during Proceedings seeking to anonymize an interim decision that had been published on and subsequently posted by a third-party website.

The request was made 19 months after the parties had settled the matter and the Tribunal had administratively closed the file.

The Tribunal held that it lacked adjudicative jurisdiction to grant the request, as the principle of functus officio applies once an application is finally disposed of, whether by final decision or administrative closure following a settlement.

The request to anonymize the interim decision was denied, but the Tribunal granted the request to anonymize the parties' names in the current decision.

The applicant alleged discrimination by the respondent university based on place of origin, ethnic origin, creed, family status, and reprisal, specifically regarding the university's delay in providing documents to the Ontario College of Teachers and the contents of those documents.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding that the allegations regarding the applicant's practicum had already been decided in a previous decision, and there was no evidence to support the claim that the delay in providing documents was discriminatory.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by an adjudicator under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The applicant had requested security footage and reports from the University of Ottawa regarding an alleged attempted theft of his backpack.

The adjudicator upheld the University's decision to withhold portions of the records, finding that the search was reasonable, there was no obligation to provide certified copies, and the withheld records contained personal information of third parties whose disclosure would constitute an unjustified invasion of privacy.

The Divisional Court found the adjudicator's decision reasonable and dismissed the application for judicial review.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application against the respondent university.

She also requested a Tribunal inquiry into a specific email.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet any of the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26, as she was essentially attempting to re-litigate issues already decided.

The request for an inquiry was also dismissed on the basis of functus officio, as the underlying application had already been finally dismissed.

The self-represented applicant brought a motion seeking to vary a prior endorsement denying urgency, to set aside a costs award, and to obtain declarations relating to alleged misconduct by a respondent in a judicial review proceeding concerning an order under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The court reviewed the transcript of the earlier motion and found that the prior judge’s determination regarding urgency and the costs award were supported by the record and applicable law.

The applicant failed to establish any basis to vary the earlier endorsement or to set aside the costs award.

The court concluded the judicial review application was not urgent and ordered that the matter be transferred to the Divisional Court pursuant to the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

Costs of the motion were awarded to the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

The applicant, a student in the Faculty of Education, alleged discrimination based on place of origin, ethnic origin, creed, and family status after failing her teaching placements and being unable to secure new ones.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success and to address the timeliness of the allegations.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to establish any link between the respondents' actions and the protected grounds under the Code.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found no good faith explanation for the delay in filing the allegations that occurred more than a year before the application was filed.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates based on medical reasons, providing a letter from a treating professional indicating she was unable to participate in legal proceedings for four months.

The respondents opposed the request, arguing the applicant had systematically delayed the proceeding and failed to comply with disclosure rules.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding the medical evidence constituted exceptional circumstances justifying the delay, but issued directions for future disclosure and scheduling to prevent indefinite delay.