Robert Edwards

At a second Case Management Conference concerning an appeal of a consent application, the Tribunal found that the Applicant failed to follow previous directions to amend the application after discovering that the subject parcels had merged.

The Tribunal ordered the Applicant to serve and file an amended application reflecting the accurate property features and relief sought by a new deadline, failing which sanctions may be considered.

A Procedural Order and Issues List were also approved for the upcoming hearing.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision approving two consent applications to create a new lot and transfer land between parcels.

At the hearing, it became apparent that the applicant was unprepared and that there was a fundamental factual question regarding whether the two originating parcels had already merged on title.

The Tribunal converted the hearing into a Case Management Conference, directed the parties to determine the merger status, and set a deadline for the applicant to amend the applications if necessary.

A second Case Management Conference and a two-day hearing were scheduled.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission held a hearing into the conduct of the Chair of the Hamilton Police Services Board regarding comments he made on a radio show about street checks and an ongoing disciplinary proceeding.

The respondent admitted his comments breached section 13 of the Code of Conduct by compromising the integrity of the board and the police force.

The Commission accepted a joint submission and Agreed Statement of Facts, ordering that the respondent be suspended from his duties on the board for three weeks.

The applicant, a Black man, alleged that the Thunder Bay Police Service and an individual officer discriminated against him based on race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, and ethnic origin.

He claimed police failed to adequately investigate his concerns about his children's safety and later unlawfully arrested him for breaching a family court order, while also subjecting him to unwarranted surveillance.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the police acted reasonably in assessing the child safety complaint and had reasonable grounds to arrest the applicant for breaching a no-harassment order.

The Tribunal found no credible evidence of surveillance and concluded there was no evidence linking the police's actions to any protected Code grounds.

The self-represented applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing on the basis that he needed more time to gather information for his case.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that adjournments are only granted in extraordinary circumstances and that a party's lack of preparation does not meet this threshold.

The Tribunal also issued directions for pre-hearing disclosure.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging harassment and a poisoned work environment.

The respondents requested dismissal on the basis that the applicant had previously signed a full and final release covering the allegations in exchange for a settlement package.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing and found that the applicant had not established any valid reason, such as lack of capacity or economic duress, to set aside the release.

Proceeding with the application would constitute an abuse of process.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant's former counsel filed a Request to Intervene in a preliminary hearing scheduled to address the respondents' request to dismiss the application as an abuse of process due to a prior settlement.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the former counsel may have relevant information regarding the settlement.

The intervention was limited to providing oral or written submissions at the preliminary hearing.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding requested an order for third-party disclosure from Yahoo!

Inc. to identify the user of an email account that allegedly sent a reprisal email to her new employer.

The Tribunal denied the request because the applicant failed to serve the third party with the Request for an Order During Proceedings, as required by Rule 19 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The denial was without prejudice to the applicant's right to revive the request upon compliance with the Rules.

The applicant filed an application alleging age discrimination after her long-term disability benefits were terminated at age 60 pursuant to a collective agreement provision.

The respondent police services board acknowledged the provision was unintentionally discriminatory and noted a new, non-discriminatory collective agreement had since been reached.

The parties resolved the application to their mutual satisfaction, and the Tribunal disposed of the matter.

The applicant alleged that the respondent breached the confidentiality provision of a human rights settlement when counsel for police officers at a separate Police Services Act hearing asked the applicant if he was seeking money 'again'.

The Tribunal held a teleconference hearing, which the applicant abandoned partway through.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the respondent was not a party to the Police Services Act hearing and had no control over the officers' independent counsel.

Furthermore, the mere fact that counsel speculated about a financial settlement did not prove that the respondent had disclosed confidential information.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled summary hearing on the basis that he was in custody and suffering from medical issues, including mental trauma, a recent stroke, and head injuries from an assault.

The respondent opposed the request, arguing that custody alone does not prevent participation.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment despite a lack of medical documentation, noting the unique circumstances, but warned the applicant that future requests would require medical evidence.

The hearing was rescheduled for Fall 2013.

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

The Tribunal addressed several preliminary requests for orders during proceedings (RFOPs).

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to amend the application to add a newly discovered act of reprisal, noting the lack of prejudice to the respondents.

The Tribunal denied the respondents' request to remove the individual respondents, finding it premature before pre-hearing disclosure, as the individual respondents' involvement in the alleged harassment and reprisal was central to the claims.

The Tribunal deferred the respondents' requests to strike a paragraph of the application and to dismiss the application under section 45.1 of the Code to the adjudicator assigned to hear the merits.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the respondent police services board.

Both parties filed multiple requests for orders during proceedings.

The respondent sought to restrain the applicant from certain conduct, including hand-delivering documents to its counsel's office, and to strike the applicant's response for uncivil language.

The applicant sought to restrain the respondent from intimidating him.

The Tribunal granted the respondent's request to prohibit hand delivery of documents due to safety concerns, but denied the other requests for broad injunctive relief, noting it lacks general injunctive powers over parties' interactions outside the Tribunal process.

The Tribunal also warned the applicant about his use of inflammatory language and directed the parties to provide submissions on whether the application should be deferred pending the applicant's parallel criminal trial.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application as abandoned after he failed to attend a scheduled summary hearing.

The applicant argued he did not attend because he lacked legal representation at the time and did not intend to abandon the application.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had not established any of the threshold criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26, noting that lack of counsel does not excuse a party from attending a hearing or requesting an adjournment.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The respondent in a human rights application requested an order to amend its Response to add a paragraph and a letter allegedly left by the applicant on a police vehicle shortly after the Response was filed.

The applicant opposed the request on relevance grounds.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting the amendment was minor, the information was newly discovered, and relevance could be addressed at the merits hearing without causing prejudice.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal against his former employer, union, a college, and the WSIB.

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

The applicant argued the delay was due to his disability, specifically chronic depression and an acquired brain injury.

The Tribunal found the application was filed more than one year after the last incident of discrimination and the applicant failed to provide medical evidence establishing that his disability prevented him from pursuing his legal rights during the material time.

The application was dismissed.

The respondents in a human rights application alleging age discrimination in a police hiring process brought a Request for Order during a Proceeding to amend their Response and to compel the production of documents.

The applicant did not oppose the amendment but resisted producing notes taken during the evaluation process, claiming they were privileged.

The Tribunal allowed the amendment and ordered the production of the notes, finding they were relevant and that no basis for privilege had been established.

The complainant, aged 57, alleged age discrimination after being unsuccessful in a competition for a tenure-track assistant professor position.

The Tribunal found that age was not a factor in the hiring decision, as the successful candidate was preferred due to superior teaching and current research.

However, the Tribunal found that the respondent university and its Dean failed to adequately investigate allegations of age discrimination raised by a dissenting member of the hiring committee, thereby violating the Human Rights Code.

In an ongoing human rights complaint alleging age discrimination in a university hiring process, the Commission requested further particulars and production of documents midway through the hearing.

The requested documents included faculty turnover rates, staffing complement, other competition processes, post-hiring evaluations of the successful candidate, and submissions to the Maclean's university survey.

The Tribunal dismissed the requests, finding that the documents were either not arguably relevant to the issues in dispute or that the request was made too late without explanation.

The Tribunal also declined to require that notice of a summons be given to a witness under section 11(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, directing instead that the summoned documents be produced to counsel.

The union brought an application under sections 69 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging a sale of business and seeking a related employer declaration after the Red Cross ceased its homemaking operations and the work was reassigned by the Community Care Access Centre (CCAC) to other service providers.

The responding parties brought a Rule 46 request to dismiss the application for failing to make out a prima facie case.

The Board declined to dismiss the section 69 sale of business application on a prima facie basis, finding that it could not conclude without evidence that only work, rather than part of a business, was transferred.

However, the Board dismissed the section 1(4) related employer application, holding that even if common control and direction existed, it would not exercise its discretion to make a declaration because the CCAC's control was regulatory and statutory, and the relationship was a bona fide subcontracting arrangement rather than an artificial erosion of bargaining rights.