Yola Ventresca

The applicant, a Black African Canadian, alleged discrimination with respect to services because of race and colour contrary to the Human Rights Code, arising from two incidents at the respondent library.

In the first incident, a library employee retrieved a high-demand book from the applicant after realizing his library card was expired.

In the second incident, staff refused to print a document for the applicant from a staff computer, citing a recent directive.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant experienced adverse treatment, there was no evidence connecting the treatment to his race or colour.

The staff's actions were found to be in good faith compliance with library policies and directives.

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

The respondent requested that part of the human rights application be dismissed as untimely, specifically an incident from November 2011.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, noting that the timeliness of the allegations had already been addressed in a previous interim decision (2014 HRTO 781), which found a sufficient thematic connection between the incidents to consider them timely.

The matter was directed to mediation.

The applicant alleged that the respondent library denied him services because of his race and/or colour on two occasions.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had no reasonable prospect of success and whether the older allegation was timely.

The applicant also raised constitutional and procedural fairness challenges to the Tribunal's summary hearing rule (Rule 19A).

The Tribunal dismissed the constitutional and procedural challenges, finding Rule 19A valid and consistent with human rights jurisprudence.

The Tribunal found that the application had a reasonable prospect of success, as the failure of a staff member to provide a directive could be used as circumstantial evidence of discrimination.

The Tribunal also found the older incident timely as part of a series of incidents.

The application was allowed to proceed.

The respondent requested an adjournment of a scheduled summary hearing due to an unexpected personal familial matter.

The applicant had also recently filed a Notice of Constitutional Question challenging the Tribunal's summary hearing process.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, noting that while adjournments are generally only granted in exceptional circumstances, the combination of the respondent's request and the need for submissions on the applicant's wide-ranging constitutional claims made an adjournment appropriate.

The applicant, a former graduate student, alleged that the respondent university failed to accommodate her disabilities.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the university's internal academic appeal process, which culminated in a decision by the Vice-Provost, had appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the Vice-Provost was not acting pursuant to any statutory authority that conferred concurrent jurisdiction to interpret and apply the Code.

As such, the internal appeal was not a proceeding that could bar the application under section 45.1.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to amend their statement of claim to add a corporate defendant, retain a placeholder defendant, and delete certain words.

The defendants brought a cross-motion to strike the statement of claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to amend, finding that the addition of the corporate defendant was a correction of a misnomer rather than the addition of a new party after the expiry of the limitation period.

The court dismissed the defendants' motion to strike, concluding it was not plain and obvious that the plaintiffs lacked capacity to sue or that their claims for breach of contract, breach of confidence, unjust enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duty would fail.

The Member, a registered practical nurse, faced disciplinary proceedings for accepting loans from two elderly clients at a retirement residence.

The Member admitted to the allegations and agreed to a statement of facts.

The Discipline Committee found that the Member committed professional misconduct by contravening the standards of practice and engaging in unprofessional and dishonourable conduct.

The Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a three-month suspension, and various terms, conditions, and limitations on the Member's certificate of registration.

The appellants appealed an order dismissing their motion to dismiss or stay the respondents' action for breach of contract and misuse of confidential information.

The appellants argued the action was barred by issue estoppel due to a Pennsylvania court order, that Ontario lacked jurisdiction, and that Ontario was forum non conveniens.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Pennsylvania court did not decide the choice of law issue, the appellants had attorned to Ontario's jurisdiction, the real and substantial connection test was met, and Ontario was the convenient forum.

The applicant, who has ADHD, panic and anxiety disorders, and an eating disorder, alleged discrimination and failure to accommodate by the respondent health centre and its staff after he was discharged from a group-based eating disorder program.

The Tribunal found no evidence that the applicant's difficulties in the program or his discharge were related to his disabilities.

The Tribunal concluded that the respondents took appropriate steps to accommodate the applicant within the parameters of their group-based program, and dismissed the application.