Lisa Kwasek

The applicant filed a Contravention of Settlement Application alleging the respondent breached a settlement by counting disability-related absences as personal emergency leave days.

On the joint request of the parties, the Tribunal issued a consent order allowing the applicant to withdraw the application without prejudice to her right to bring a future section 34 application regarding the legal question of whether disability-related absences may be counted as personal emergency leave days.

The Tribunal's file was closed.

The applicant alleged that the respondents contravened a settlement agreement by failing to comply with timelines and delivery directions, and by failing to provide adequate confirmation of human rights training.

The Tribunal found that the respondents breached the settlement by delivering the settlement funds and documents late and to the wrong address, causing the applicant mental distress.

The Tribunal awarded $1,000 in damages for this breach.

The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's other claims, finding that the respondents had complied with the training confirmation requirements and that there was no basis to reopen the settlement or find that the applicant was coerced.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability almost eight months after the one-year limitation period expired.

He argued that cognitive impairments from a workplace concussion prevented him from filing on time.

The Tribunal found insufficient medical or objective evidence to establish that his disability was so debilitating as to prevent him from pursuing his legal rights, noting he was able to appeal a WSIB decision and secure employment during the delay period.

The application was dismissed as untimely.

The parties jointly requested an order to anonymize the names of the applicant and the individual respondent in the Tribunal's decisions.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting that the previously released interim decisions contained highly sensitive information about the applicant's mental health.

The Tribunal balanced the public interest in open justice against the sensitive nature of the information and the small size of the academic program at issue.

The matter having been resolved, the Tribunal's file was closed.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding requested several interim orders, including permission to have the hearing transcribed by a court reporter and a change of venue from London to Toronto as an accommodation for her post-traumatic stress.

The Tribunal granted the request for a court reporter, ordering the applicant to provide transcripts to all parties at her expense.

The Tribunal denied the change of venue request, noting it was made less than a week before the hearing and that other accommodations could be provided in London.

A request for reconsideration of a prior interim decision was also denied as premature.

The applicant, a student in a Masters of Physical Therapy Program, alleged discrimination based on perceived learning disability.

Three months before the hearing, she filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to amend her Application to add grounds of race, ancestry, colour, and ethnic origin, and seeking production of documents relating to other students.

The Tribunal denied the amendment request due to the late timing, the fundamental change to the nature of the case, and prejudice to the respondents.

The Tribunal also denied the production requests, finding that information about other students' disability screening and academic progression was not arguably relevant.

While the request for other students' exam scores was arguably relevant to the allegation of biased grading, the Tribunal could not order production because the exams had already been destroyed pursuant to the university's retention policy.

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

The respondent, which operates a warehouse facilitating the cross-border import and export of meat and CFIA inspections, requested dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, arguing its operations are a federal undertaking.

The Tribunal found that while the respondent does not fall directly within federal jurisdiction, its essential operational nature is integral to both the CFIA and international common carriers.

Consequently, the respondent is a federal undertaking by virtue of derivative jurisdiction, and the Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant, a college student, alleged that the respondent, the college's Code of Conduct Administrator, reprised against her for filing a human rights application by investigating her conduct and suspending her.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant had asserted her Code rights and faced an adverse action, there was no intention to reprise.

The investigations into the applicant's numerous complaints against professors were adequate and revealed that her behaviour was disruptive and harassing.

The Tribunal concluded that the suspension was imposed for non-discriminatory reasons related to violations of the Student Code of Conduct, not as retaliation for her human rights complaints.

The application was dismissed.

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 applicant, a custodian, injured her knee and returned to work with a medical restriction to walk short distances only.

The respondent accommodated her by allowing her to take breaks as needed, but failed to formally assess or communicate the restriction to her direct supervisors, leading her to work beyond her restriction.

The Tribunal found that the respondent failed in both the procedural and substantive components of its duty to accommodate.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the allegation that the respondent failed to adequately investigate her subsequent internal complaints, finding its response reasonable.

The applicant was awarded $5,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The applicant, a student at the respondent college, filed five human rights applications alleging discrimination on the basis of sex, age, and disability, as well as reprisal, against the college and several of its instructors and staff members.

The Tribunal convened a summary hearing to determine whether the applications had any reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's claims of discrimination and most of her reprisal claims were based on speculation and lacked any factual foundation linking the respondents' conduct to a prohibited ground.

However, the Tribunal allowed one aspect of the applicant's reprisal claim—alleging that the college's Code of Conduct Administrator reprised against her for claiming her rights under the Code during his investigation—to proceed to a full hearing on the merits.

The remaining applications and claims were dismissed.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates because he had recently retained counsel who had other obligations and insufficient time to prepare.

The respondent objected, noting prejudice due to counsel's upcoming maternity leave.

The Tribunal denied the request, stating that late retention of counsel does not constitute extraordinary circumstances justifying an adjournment under its Practice Direction on Scheduling.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to services because of disability.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application was dealt with by an internal university appeal.

The respondents also requested the removal of individual respondents, to which the applicant consented.

The Tribunal ordered the removal of the individual respondents and scheduled a teleconference hearing to determine the s. 45.1 dismissal request.

The appellants, a contractor and an intermediary, appealed a Small Claims Court judgment finding them in breach of a home renovation contract and awarding the respondents $9,500.

The trial judge had found the contractor breached the contract by demanding a scheduled installment payment before completing equivalent work.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the trial judge erred by implying a term that contradicted the written payment schedule, which did not require work to be completed before installments were due.

The court also found the damages calculation resulted in a windfall.

The respondents' claim was dismissed, and the appellants' counterclaim was remitted for an assessment of damages.