Karen Jensen

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability against her employer, RBC, its employees, and Manulife, which adjudicated RBC's short-term disability claims.

Manulife and its employee requested summary dismissal, arguing they were not the applicant's employer.

RBC requested the removal of its individual employees as respondents, accepting vicarious liability for their actions.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against Manulife and its employee as having no reasonable prospect of success because they were not the applicant's employer.

The Tribunal also removed the individual RBC employees as respondents, finding no compelling reason to keep them in the proceeding since RBC accepted responsibility for their conduct.

The applicant, a medical resident, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by the respondent university regarding her residency performance assessments and probation.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance of the application had already been dealt with.

The Tribunal found that the Ontario Divisional Court had previously dismissed the applicant's judicial review application regarding the same academic decisions, finding them fair and reasonable.

Concluding that the substance of the human rights application was appropriately dealt with in the judicial review proceeding, the Tribunal dismissed the application to prevent relitigation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability after her claim for long-term disability benefits was denied.

The application was filed more than one year after the denial decisions.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed for delay.

The applicant argued her mental health prevented her from filing on time, but the Tribunal found she had pursued other avenues of redress during the same period.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to establish a good faith explanation for the delay and dismissed the application as being outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant, a medical resident, sought judicial review of a decision by the university's Senate Appeals Committee that upheld her placement on academic probation due to poor performance and patient safety concerns.

The applicant argued that the committee violated procedural fairness and that its decision was unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the committee provided a high degree of procedural fairness, cured any minor procedural defects through a de novo hearing, and reached a reasonable decision within its academic expertise.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of age, race, ethnic origin, and colour after his insurer determined he was 100% at fault for an automobile accident under the Fault Determination Rules, despite a police officer stating he did not cause the accident.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant provided no evidence linking the insurer's fault determination to any prohibited ground under the Human Rights Code.

The defendants brought a motion under Rules 21.01(3)(d) and 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss an action brought by a physician and university faculty member challenging internal academic decisions concerning sexual harassment findings and denial of academic promotion.

The plaintiff sought declarations overturning internal university decisions and substantial damages based on various tort and Charter claims.

The court held that the action constituted an abuse of process because it attempted to re‑litigate matters that were properly the subject of university procedures and judicial review of academic decisions.

The court further found that the statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action, including because university officers were acting within their institutional roles, complainants in quasi‑judicial proceedings enjoy absolute privilege, and universities are generally not subject to Charter claims absent implementation of government policy.

The entire statement of claim was struck without leave to amend.

The appellants, medical residents, sued the university and several individuals in contract and tort after being dismissed or not promoted in their programs.

The motion judge struck their statement of claim as an abuse of process, finding it was an attempt to relitigate facts already determined through the university's internal academic appeal process and upheld on judicial review.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, confirming that the abuse of process doctrine applies to prevent relitigation of issues determined in administrative proceedings where the process directly affected the appellants' academic and professional standing.

Following a successful motion dismissing a statement of claim as an abuse of process, the defendants sought substantial indemnity costs exceeding $177,000.

The plaintiffs argued that costs should be limited to $20,000 on a partial indemnity basis and contended that certain work related to alternate arguments on the motion should not be compensated.

The court held that substantial indemnity costs were appropriate due to unfounded allegations of serious misconduct against the defendants and the finding that the proceeding constituted an abuse of process.

While accepting the accuracy of the defendants’ bill of costs and the complexity and importance of the litigation, the court found the amount claimed excessive.

Costs were therefore fixed at a fair and reasonable level significantly below the amount requested.

The applicant, an international medical graduate, filed human rights applications against the university and hospital alleging discrimination after he was suspended from his neurosurgery residency program.

The respondents sought to dismiss the applications under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code or as an abuse of process, arguing the matters were resolved through settlement agreements reached during a related grievance arbitration.

The Tribunal found that the settlement agreements contained ongoing contingencies and the arbitrator remained seized of the matters.

Consequently, the Tribunal deferred the human rights applications pending the final conclusion of the grievance and arbitration process.

The applicant, a university student with a disability, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination after she was assigned a failing grade (INC) when she could not complete a deferred exam.

The respondents brought a request to dismiss the application for delay, arguing the events occurred more than one year before filing.

The Tribunal found that the respondents' subsequent refusals to retroactively withdraw the applicant from the course were not a series of fresh incidents, but rather the continuing effects of the original discrete decision to assign the INC grade.

As the applicant did not establish that the delay was incurred in good faith, the application was dismissed as out of time.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of disability after being permanently deferred from donating stem cells by Canadian Blood Services (CBS).

CBS brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the application for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that stem cell donor screening falls under federal jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that the federal government has constitutional authority to regulate stem cell donations under its criminal law and POGG powers.

Applying the doctrine of paramountcy, the Tribunal concluded that applying provincial human rights legislation to federally-regulated donor selection criteria would frustrate the federal purpose of maintaining a safe, national stem cell transplant system.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant, a medical resident, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by the respondent university.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code because the applicant had commenced a civil action in the Superior Court of Justice raising the same allegations and seeking similar remedies.

The Tribunal found that the civil action and the human rights application relied on the same facts, alleged identical human rights contraventions, and sought analogous remedies.

Consequently, section 34(11) acted as an absolute jurisdictional bar, and the application was dismissed.

The applicant, a medical resident, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by the respondents.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code because the applicant had commenced a civil action in the Superior Court of Justice raising the same allegations and seeking similar remedies.

The Tribunal found that the civil action and the human rights application relied on the same facts, alleged identical human rights contraventions, and sought analogous remedies.

Consequently, section 34(11) acted as an absolute jurisdictional bar, and the application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by the respondent university's medical residency program.

The respondent requested the dismissal of the application under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the applicant had commenced a civil action seeking remedies for the same alleged human rights infringements.

The Tribunal found that the civil action and the human rights application relied on the same facts, alleged identical human rights contraventions, and sought analogous remedies.

Consequently, the Tribunal determined it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the application.

The applicant, a medical resident, filed a human rights application against the University of Ottawa and four doctors, alleging discrimination on the basis of race, colour, place of origin, citizenship, and ethnic origin.

The respondents requested the removal of the personal respondents, arguing the University accepted full liability for their actions as its agents.

The Tribunal removed three of the doctors whose involvement was limited to their official capacities and who were not alleged to have engaged in personal discriminatory conduct.

The Tribunal declined to remove the fourth doctor at this stage, as the applicant alleged she made personal discriminatory comments, which could warrant a specific remedy against her if proven.

The respondents brought a Request for Order During Proceedings to remove six individual respondents from a human rights application, arguing they were unnecessary parties as the institutional respondent accepted vicarious liability for their actions.

The applicant consented to the removal of two individuals but opposed the removal of the remaining four.

Applying the factors from Persaud, the Tribunal found no compelling reason to continue the proceeding against the individuals, as the institutional respondent was capable of remedying any infringement and leaving them as parties would unnecessarily complicate the process.

The request was granted and all personal respondents were removed.