Stephen Maio

The corporate respondent and a personal respondent requested a summary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that evidence was required to resolve factual disputes and clarify the impact of an arbitrator's findings.

The Tribunal also granted the York Regional Police Association's request to intervene, noting its typical practice of allowing union intervention in applications arising from unionized workplaces.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to amend the public interest remedy sought in his human rights application alleging racial profiling.

The respondent opposed the request, arguing the systemic remedy sought was inappropriate based on the allegations and would add unnecessary length and complexity.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting that requests to amend remedies are regularly granted up to the date of the hearing, and the respondent could make submissions on the appropriateness of the remedies at the hearing.

The applicant brought a request to amend their human rights application to correct a typographical error, add allegations of reprisal that occurred after filing, and amend the remedial section.

The respondents brought requests to remove individual respondents and dismiss portions of the application as untimely.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to amend, finding it appropriate given the ongoing relationship and the timing of the request.

The Tribunal deferred deciding the remaining preliminary issues, noting they were inter-related with the amendment and could be addressed if the matter did not resolve at the upcoming mediation/adjudication.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the resolution of a concurrent grievance arbitration proceeding dealing with the termination of the applicant's employment.

The respondent supported deferral, while the applicant did not address the issue.

The Tribunal deferred the application, noting its normal practice of deferring to grievance arbitration processes where there is substantial overlap in facts and human rights issues, as arbitrators have the authority to enforce human rights obligations.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the Durham Children's Aid Society and the York Police Services Board based on race, creed, and other grounds.

The allegations arose from the applicant's attempts to secure custody of her son, who had been placed in her sister's custody by a court order.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding that the applicant had no reasonable prospect of success because she could not point to any evidence connecting the respondents' actions to a prohibited ground of discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability by the respondent police service.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed three procedural requests.

First, the Tribunal granted the applicant's request to amend his application to include a subsequent incident involving the suspension of his Personal Access Code, finding the amendment had a reasonable prospect of success.

Second, the Tribunal denied the applicant's request to extend the deadline for document disclosure pending a freedom of information request, noting the applicant should instead use the Tribunal's production request process.

Finally, the Tribunal removed the applicant's union as an affected party, as the union confirmed it was not representing him.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and subsequently requested an interim remedy of $17,000 to support an 'upper class' lifestyle and travel.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant failed to meet the significant onus under Rule 23.2 to establish that the application appeared to have merit, that the balance of harm favoured the remedy, or that it was just and appropriate.

The Tribunal noted that a summary hearing had already been directed because the application appeared to have no reasonable prospect of success, and the requested remedy did not align with the remedial purposes of the Code.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision addressing two Requests for Orders During Proceedings (RFOP) filed shortly before the hearing.

The respondents were ordered to produce requested medical documents.

The Tribunal permitted the applicant to rely on a late-filed witness statement, finding that any prejudice could be cured by adjusting the order of testimony.

The applicant was ordered to provide particulars regarding the witness's testimony, and the Tribunal limited the scope of the witness's permitted evidence to relevant factual matters regarding accommodation practices.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because the applicant's union had filed a grievance regarding her recent termination from employment.

The Tribunal found that although the application did not directly address the termination, there was sufficient overlap between the application and the grievance, particularly regarding issues related to the applicant's disability and potential remedial issues.

To avoid concurrent proceedings and contrary findings, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance arbitration proceeding.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability against his former employer, Tokmakjian, its manager, and Veolia, the company that took over the transit contract.

The applicant's driver's licence had been suspended for medical reasons (depression) and for speeding.

He alleged he was not rehired or accommodated by Tokmakjian, and that Veolia refused to let him write a test or hire him while his licence was suspended.

Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the application against all respondents, finding no reasonable prospect that the applicant could establish a link between the respondents' actions and his disability.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging his former employer discriminated against him by providing a negative employment reference.

The respondent requested early dismissal, arguing the applicant had previously signed a full and final release settling a prior grievance and human rights application, and that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because an arbitrator remained seized of the settlement.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that a release cannot contractually bar future human rights claims based on subsequent events, and that parties cannot contract out of the Tribunal's statutory jurisdiction to determine contraventions of settlement.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex and disability by the respondent police services during her arrest and detention.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the sex discrimination allegations, finding that being arrested by a male officer and the police's alleged failure to investigate her prior complaints did not constitute sex discrimination.

However, the Tribunal allowed the disability discrimination allegations to proceed, as the issues regarding the accommodation of the applicant's osteoarthritis during handcuffing and her exposure to ammonia fumes in the holding cell aggravating her asthma required a full evidentiary hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and age, as well as reprisal, by the respondent police services board.

The allegations stemmed from the police's handling of a neighbour dispute and the applicant's subsequent arrest for violating a peace bond.

Following a preliminary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect that the applicant could establish a link between the police's actions and her age or perceived mental health issues, nor any evidence of reprisal for claiming a Code right.

The applicant, a Black woman of Jamaican origin, alleged discrimination by police officers during a traffic stop and subsequent arrest for a suspected breach of bail conditions.

She claimed the officers used excessive force, uttered racial slurs, and ignored her disability.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant's evidence lacked credibility and reliability.

The Tribunal accepted the officers' version of events, concluding that the physical altercation resulted from the applicant resisting arrest and that there was insufficient evidence to prove race or disability factored into her treatment.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination, harassment, and reprisal by police officers during and after an arrest.

The respondents requested the removal of two personal respondents, arguing the police board accepted vicarious liability.

The applicant requested to add a third officer as a personal respondent and sought document production.

The Tribunal denied the request to remove the personal respondents, finding their alleged conduct central to the application and potentially subject to individual remedies.

The Tribunal granted the request to add the third officer and ordered the respondents to address outstanding production issues and specific allegations.

The applicant filed Requests for Order during Proceedings seeking the production of documents and to add five individual police officers as respondents.

The Tribunal denied the request for production as premature, noting the respondent had been granted an extension of time to deliver its arguably relevant documents.

The Tribunal also denied the request to add the individual officers as respondents, applying the Smyth and Persaud factors.

The Tribunal found no compelling reason to add them, as the allegations did not raise issues like harassment, the Board accepted vicarious liability for their conduct, and there was no issue regarding the Board's ability to implement any potential remedy.

The applicant filed three human rights applications alleging discrimination in the provision of services.

The Tribunal scheduled a hearing to address preliminary issues, including requests for early dismissal.

The applicant's paralegal representative failed to comply with multiple Tribunal directions to file materials, unsuccessfully sought three adjournments, and ultimately failed to attend the scheduled hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the applications as abandoned due to the failure to attend and comply with directions.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the representative's pattern of conduct, which was directed at avoiding or delaying the hearing, constituted an abuse of process under section 23(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, providing an additional basis for dismissal.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of family and marital status after the respondent police service declined to investigate his complaint of theft and fraud arising from the court-ordered sale of his matrimonial home.

Following the presentation of the applicant's case at the hearing, the respondent requested summary dismissal.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, as there was no evidence linking the police's decision not to investigate to a prohibited ground.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race and ethnic origin, and reprisal by the respondent police services board and individual officers in relation to a neighbour dispute and subsequent criminal proceedings.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed for failing to establish a prima facie case.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's allegations, even if true, did not establish a connection to a Code ground or involve the personal respondents in discriminatory conduct.

The application was dismissed for failing to establish a prima facie case.

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

At the scheduled hearing, the applicant requested an adjournment, citing difficulties obtaining medical reports and witnesses.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding no extraordinary circumstances.

As the applicant was unprepared to proceed and called no evidence to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, the Tribunal granted the respondent's request to dismiss the application for lack of evidence.