Marco Visentini

The applicant, an inmate, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to services.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed the applicant's requests for consolidation, amendment, an extension of time, and production of documents.

The Tribunal denied consolidation with previously dismissed applications and denied the amendment request.

The Tribunal granted a brief extension of time for the applicant to file materials for an upcoming preliminary hearing.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant's former criminal counsel and the Ombudsman Ontario to produce specific documents and correspondence that the applicant had previously provided to them or received from them, to assist the applicant in providing particulars of his allegations.

The Tribunal denied the request for broader documentary production from the respondents at this preliminary stage.

The applicant filed human rights applications alleging discrimination by various respondents relating to his criminal proceedings, parole, and counselling services.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the applications should be dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations against the parole officer and the Crown on the basis of absolute immunity, as they arose from testimony and reports provided for a criminal sentencing hearing.

The remaining allegations against the municipality, police service, and a community organization were dismissed for delay, as the applicant failed to provide a good faith explanation for waiting between four and nine years to file the applications.

The applicant, a police officer working past age 65, alleged age discrimination regarding the loss of group health benefits, reduction in life insurance, and pressure to retire.

Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the allegations concerning the benefit and insurance plans, finding that the differential treatment for employees over 65 complies with the Employment Standards Act and is therefore protected by s. 25(2.1) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the allegations of age-related harassment and pressure to retire, directing the applicant to provide further particulars.

The City of Hamilton and the Hamilton Police Association were removed as respondents.

The applicant sought judicial review of two decisions by the Office of the Independent Police Review Director.

The Director had screened out a complaint regarding seized funds and confirmed a decision by the Hamilton Police Service not to proceed to a disciplinary hearing regarding allegations of excessive force.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to set aside a criminal conviction or order the return of funds on judicial review, and that the Director's decisions were reasonable.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability in the provision of services after a police officer inquired about his mental health during an investigation of a neighbour dispute.

The officer had responded to the applicant's complaint of assault, and the neighbour alleged the applicant was schizophrenic and acting dangerously.

The Tribunal found that the officer's questions about the applicant's mental health were part of a legitimate police investigation to determine if there were grounds for apprehension under the Mental Health Act.

The application was dismissed, as the inquiry did not violate the Human Rights Code.

The appellant police officer appealed a penalty of demotion to third-class constable for six months, which was imposed after she pled guilty to discreditable conduct stemming from an off-duty criminal conviction for causing a disturbance.

At the disciplinary hearing, the parties had presented a joint submission for a lesser penalty of demotion to second-class constable.

The Hearing Officer rejected the joint submission without providing notice or reasons.

On appeal, the Commission found that the Hearing Officer violated principles of fairness by failing to give notice or an opportunity to make submissions before departing from the joint submission.

The appeal was allowed on consent, the original penalty was revoked, and the jointly proposed penalty was substituted.

The applicants, comprising twelve female employees of the Hamilton Police Service, the Hamilton Police Services Board, and the Chief of Police, sought judicial review of a Hearing Officer's decision.

The Hearing Officer had quashed a Notice of Hearing containing twenty-four charges of police misconduct, including sexual harassment, against the respondent police officer due to a failure to serve the notice within the six-month statutory period.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, finding that none of the applicants had standing.

The court held that the female employees were barred by the Police Services Act from bringing a complaint against a fellow officer, and that binding appellate authority precluded the Chief of Police and the Police Services Board from seeking judicial review of a disciplinary decision they could not directly appeal.