Kevin Inwood

The applicant, alleging age and sex discrimination in a hiring process for underground miners, brought a Request for Orders During Proceedings seeking production of documents.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to produce information regarding the familial relationships of the successful candidates and all hiring information, including government modules, resumes, and interview summaries.

The Tribunal declined to order the production of the names of female underground production miners, finding the information had little relevance.

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceeding asking that the human rights application be dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant had repeatedly failed to meet deadlines for exchanging arguably relevant documents, despite being granted three extensions of time and being warned that failure to comply could result in dismissal.

The applicant also failed to respond to the respondents' request to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had abandoned the application and dismissed it.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding sought a third extension of time to file his arguably relevant disclosure materials and requested that the hearing be suspended.

He claimed he could not access his documents because they were in his matrimonial home, which he had left due to a marital separation.

The respondents opposed the request, noting the age of the application and the applicant's failure to seek alternative means of obtaining the documents.

The Tribunal denied the applicant's requests, finding he had not provided supporting documentation or established exceptional circumstances to justify an adjournment.

The applicant was ordered to provide his disclosure within 21 days or face potential dismissal of the application for abandonment.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to add his supervisor as a personal respondent to his human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the corporate respondent was already a party and there was no compelling juridical reason to add the supervisor personally.

The Tribunal emphasized that the unnecessary naming of personal respondents is discouraged where a corporate respondent is deemed liable for the actions of its employees under section 45(1) of the Code and there is no issue regarding its ability to respond to or remedy an alleged infringement.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment and reprisal.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant had previously filed an application with the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) under the Occupational Health and Safety Act dealing with the same issues.

Applying the factors for deferral, the Tribunal found significant overlap between the allegations and parties in both proceedings.

To avoid concurrent proceedings and the possibility of inconsistent decisions, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the OLRB process.

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

He had previously filed a civil action for wrongful dismissal, seeking damages and alleging the respondent failed to accommodate his disability.

The Tribunal found that the factual situation in the application was the same as in the civil action, and the applicant was effectively seeking damages for a Code breach in court.

Consequently, the application was barred by section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code and dismissed.

The applicant police officer brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's appeal for failing to comply with the 30-day time limit under section 70(1) of the Police Services Act.

The appellant filed his notice of appeal over 60 days after receiving the hearing officer's decision staying the disciplinary proceedings.

The Commission held that the 30-day statutory time limit is mandatory and cannot be extended under the Commission's Rules of Practice.

The motion was granted and the appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.