Shawn O'Connor

The applicant, a self-employed individual who had taken maternity leave prior to the accident, sought an income replacement benefit (IRB).

She argued that calculating her pre-accident income based on her last completed taxation year under s. 4(3) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS) infringed the Human Rights Code on the ground of sex/pregnancy, as her income was reduced during her maternity leave.

The Adjudicator agreed that s. 4(3) had a discriminatory effect but found that the Tribunal lacked the jurisdiction to amend or read in language to the Schedule to craft the remedy sought by the applicant.

The Adjudicator determined the quantum of the IRB based on the applicant's 2016 tax return without deducting the capital cost allowance (CCA), as the current SABS does not mandate such a deduction.

The applicant's claim for an award under O. Reg 664 was dismissed, but interest on overdue benefits was awarded.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to re-activate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of proceedings before the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) and professional colleges.

The applicant provided evidence that the FSCO application was withdrawn following a settlement with the respondent insurer, and the college proceedings were completed.

The Tribunal granted the request to re-activate the application and directed that a preliminary/summary hearing be scheduled to determine whether the application should be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code or for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in the delivery of a service based on disability, family status, and marital status.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred pending the completion of concurrent proceedings before the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) and professional colleges.

The Tribunal found significant overlap between the facts and issues in the application and the FSCO arbitration, raising a real risk of inconsistent findings.

The application was deferred pending the conclusion of the FSCO proceeding.

The applicant filed a request to withdraw her human rights application.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed to prevent future refiling.

The Tribunal granted the applicant permission to withdraw the application without conditions, noting that if the applicant attempts to refile, the respondent may raise its objections at that time.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing on the basis of disability, age, and receipt of public assistance.

He subsequently requested to add his spouse as a co-applicant.

Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal treated the request as a new application filed on the spouse's behalf and consolidated the two applications.

The Tribunal dismissed several allegations, including those related to subsidy information, an ODSP drug card, and certain repair issues, on the bases of delay and having no reasonable prospect of success.

The remaining allegations concerning the timing of a move to a new unit and specific disability-related repair issues were permitted to proceed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging failure to accommodate a disability and reprisal.

In advance of the hearing, the parties disputed the production of certain documents.

The applicant objected to the respondents' late production of surveillance footage and investigator reports, which the Tribunal deferred to the hearing.

The respondents requested production of the applicant's financial records, vehicle documents, and medical records.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to produce these documents, finding them arguably relevant to the issues of economic loss, mitigation, and the extent of the applicant's disability.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code and later requested to withdraw it after the respondent had filed a response.

The respondent objected, requesting that the application be dismissed to ensure finality.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to withdraw the application without terms, noting that if a new application based on the same subject matter is filed in the future, the respondent may object at that time.

The member, a retired teacher, pleaded no contest to allegations of professional misconduct and unethical conduct arising from inappropriate correspondence with a former student.

Over a one-year period, the member sent letters to the former student expressing romantic and sexual interest, thereby failing to uphold the honour, dignity, and ethical standards of the teaching profession.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering the immediate revocation of the member's certificate of qualification and registration, and directing publication of the findings in summary form without identifying names.

The applicant, a self-employed contractor, was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought ongoing statutory accident benefits.

The insurer disputed the calculation of his pre-accident income and his entitlement to benefits beyond the 156-week mark.

The arbitrator found the applicant's business records unreliable due to fraudulent alterations, calculating his income based on a 52-week average rather than a 4-week period.

On the issue of disability, the arbitrator determined that the applicant remained disabled from his pre-accident employment and required a work hardening program before transitioning to suitable alternative employment in construction retail.

The applicant was awarded ongoing benefits and partial expenses, with deductions for post-accident earnings.