Kerri Kitchura

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

The respondents requested an order to dismiss four of the five allegations for delay, arguing they were filed outside the one-year limitation period and did not form a series of incidents with the timely allegation.

The Tribunal found that the earlier allegations related to separate and independent incidents, including harassment prior to the injury and failure to accommodate during a previous contract, which were not connected to the timely allegation regarding a refusal to sign a certification form.

As the applicant provided no explanation for the delay, the Tribunal dismissed the earlier allegations.

The Tribunal declined to hold a summary hearing for the remaining allegation, directing it to proceed to a hearing on the merits.

The applicant filed two human rights applications alleging discrimination and reprisal by the respondents, as well as six union grievances based on overlapping facts.

The respondents requested that the applications be consolidated and deferred pending the outcome of the grievance arbitration.

The Tribunal applied the Lattey factors and consolidated the applications to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings.

The Tribunal also deferred the consolidated applications, noting that grievance arbitrators have the jurisdiction and responsibility to enforce human rights obligations, and the union had already referred the grievances to arbitration.

The applicant requested to re-activate her human rights application, which had previously been deferred pending the conclusion of a grievance process.

The respondents opposed the request, noting that the grievances had proceeded to Step 3 and were anticipated to be referred to arbitration.

The Tribunal found it inappropriate to re-activate the application while the grievance process was ongoing and ordered that the application remain deferred.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging the respondent employer failed to accommodate his disability-related needs following a workplace injury.

The applicant's union had also filed grievances on the same issue, which proceeded to arbitration where the respondent conceded liability for a specific period.

The respondent requested the Tribunal dismiss the application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the arbitration appropriately dealt with its substance.

The Tribunal agreed, finding the issues raised in the application were substantially the same as those in the grievances, and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability when the respondent City delayed providing accommodated work in 2009, provided unsuitable work, and required him to participate in a work selection process in 2010 while he was medically unable to work.

The respondent brought a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking dismissal.

The Tribunal found that the 2009 allegations were out of time and the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The Tribunal also found that the 2010 allegations had no reasonable prospect of success because there is no duty to accommodate an employee who is unable to work.

The application was dismissed.

The respondent requested to dismiss parts of the applicant's human rights application for delay, arguing that allegations prior to June 2010 were untimely.

The applicant alleged discrimination based on disability, sex, sexual orientation, and marital status, claiming a failure to accommodate her workplace injury and differential treatment regarding her same-sex marriage.

The Tribunal found that the events from July 2008 to June 2010 constituted a 'series of incidents' under section 34(1)(b) of the Human Rights Code, as they were sufficiently proximate in time, similar in nature, and involved the same parties.

The respondent's request to dismiss the allegations was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, which was previously deferred pending a grievance arbitration.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal dismiss the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the grievance proceeding appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal reactivated the application and ordered a one-day in-person hearing to determine the section 45.1 dismissal request.

The applicant, a Municipal Standards Officer, alleged racial discrimination after being denied a transfer back to his preferred office location.

He claimed that a less senior employee was transferred instead of him due to discrimination.

The Tribunal found that the transfer of the less senior employee was done in accordance with the collective agreement's temporary-to-permanent conversion process, and there was no evidence of racial discrimination.

Other allegations of discrimination were also dismissed as they were either out of time or lacked any connection to the applicant's race.

The applicant, a former fire captain, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and failure to accommodate his disability, which he claimed led to his forced retirement.

The application was filed more than one year after the last alleged incident.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed for delay.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's explanations for the delay, including his medical condition, alleged misinformation from the Commission, and ignorance of changes to the human rights system, did not establish that the delay was incurred in good faith.

Consequently, the application was dismissed as being outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant, a former fire captain, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and failure to accommodate his disability, which he claimed led to his forced retirement.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed for delay, as it was filed more than one year after the last alleged incident.

The applicant argued the delay was in good faith due to his depression and his lack of knowledge about the new human rights system.

The Tribunal found that medical evidence is required to establish that a disability prevented an applicant from pursuing their rights, which was not provided.

Furthermore, the discoverability principle does not apply to ignorance of legal rights.

The Tribunal concluded the application was filed out of time without good faith for the delay, and dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability when he was denied sick pay during a lawful strike.

The applicant had agreed to delay his sick leave to assist the respondent, but the strike commenced on the day his leave began.

The Tribunal held that the denial of sick pay was due to the collective agreement not being in effect during the strike, not the applicant's disability.

The application was dismissed at a preliminary stage for failing to make out a prima facie case of discrimination.

The applicant filed human rights complaints against his employer and his union, alleging discrimination on the basis of disability regarding his workplace accommodation and access to training for a different position.

The respondents sought early dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance of the applications had been appropriately dealt with in a grievance settlement.

The Tribunal found that the grievance settlement explicitly acknowledged the applicant was being accommodated in his current position, thereby resolving the substance of the human rights applications.

The applications were dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment on the basis of disability, ancestry, and reprisal.

The application was filed more than one year after the last alleged incident.

The Tribunal held a hearing to determine whether the delay was incurred in good faith under section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code and whether the application should be deferred pending an inactive union grievance.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's severe epilepsy and related medications significantly impaired his memory and cognition, establishing that the delay was incurred in good faith.

As the respondent conceded there was no prejudice, the application was permitted to proceed.

The Tribunal also declined to defer the application because the grievance process had been inactive for three years.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in employment against the City of Toronto, the Toronto Professional Fire Fighters' Association, and various individuals.

The Association and its president sought to be removed as respondents.

The Tribunal granted their request, finding that the union's mere participation in the accommodation process or failure to take the same position as the employee does not constitute a Code violation.

The Tribunal also removed three personal respondents, two on consent and one due to a lack of substantive allegations, but declined to remove one personal respondent against whom specific allegations of personal misconduct were made.

The applicants, five firefighters, filed human rights applications alleging discrimination based on disability.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's motion to remove the union's legal counsel, finding no prior solicitor-client relationship existed.

The Tribunal also dismissed the respondents' motion to disqualify the applicants' unlicensed representative, finding he fell within the 'unpaid friend' exemption under the Law Society Act and his representation did not constitute an abuse of process.

Finally, the Tribunal declined to consolidate the five applications, as each raised unique factual issues regarding the duty to accommodate.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because a concurrent grievance had been filed on the applicant's behalf.

The respondents supported deferral but indicated they would challenge the arbitrability of the grievance because the applicant was a probationary employee.

The Tribunal held that deferral was not appropriate in these circumstances, as the respondents intended to challenge the arbitrator's jurisdiction to hear the grievance.

The respondents were ordered to file their Response.

The appellant, an off-duty police officer, appealed his conviction for discreditable conduct and the resulting penalty of a forfeiture of five days off.

The conviction stemmed from an incident where the appellant became verbally abusive and engaged in a physical confrontation with a security guard after a store refused to accept a $100 bill.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that the Hearing Officer's decision was supported by clear and convincing evidence and that the penalty was within the appropriate range.

The appeal against both conviction and penalty was dismissed.

The appellant police officer appealed a conviction and penalty for discreditable conduct arising from an off-duty incident at a retail store.

The officer had become verbally abusive and engaged in a physical confrontation with a security guard after being told the store would not accept a $100 bill.

The Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer's decision was supported by clear and convincing evidence and that the penalty of a forfeiture of five days off was appropriate given the seriousness of the misconduct.

The appellant, an off-duty police officer, was convicted of discreditable conduct and penalized with a forfeiture of five days off after a confrontation at a retail store.

The officer became verbally abusive and engaged in a physical altercation with security after the store refused to accept a 100-dollar bill.

On appeal, the Commission upheld the conviction, finding that the Hearing Officer's decision was supported by clear and convincing evidence despite minor inconsistencies in witness testimony.

The penalty was also upheld as appropriate given the seriousness of the misconduct and the damage to the reputation of the police service.

The defendant employer brought a motion for leave to appeal an order refusing to strike out the statement of claim against it.

The employer argued that at common law, an employer cannot be impleaded by an employee seeking a remedy for their union's breach of the duty of fair representation.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that the common law is dynamic and a plaintiff should not be denied the possibility of establishing a right to a remedy at the pleadings stage.