Michel R. Carré

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability regarding the respondent's 'Special' transit pass, which he claimed publicly identified him as a person with a disability in receipt of social assistance.

The respondent raised preliminary issues, arguing the pass was a protected special program under s. 14 of the Human Rights Code and that the application was untimely.

The Tribunal dismissed the special program defense, finding the application challenged the program's implementation rather than its existence.

The Tribunal also found the application timely, as each issuance of the pass constituted an incident in a series.

The applicant's request for particulars was denied as premature.

The applicants filed human rights applications against a housing cooperative and individuals, alleging discrimination in housing based on race, creed, marital status, and reprisal.

At a summary hearing, the Tribunal considered requests to add and remove various personal respondents and to amend the applications.

The Tribunal declined to add the Board of Directors or its individual members, as the corporate respondent accepted vicarious liability.

The Tribunal added the Coopérative Coordinator as a personal respondent to one application due to allegations of harassment, which attract personal liability.

The Tribunal allowed unopposed amendments to the applications and concluded that the applications had a reasonable prospect of success, directing them to a full hearing on the merits.

The applicant, a grocery store employee, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on ancestry and ethnic origin after she was removed from cash register duties due to her inability to speak French.

She later sought to amend her application to include a claim of discrimination based on disability, alleging a failure to accommodate a previous workplace injury.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend but dismissed the entire application following a summary hearing.

The Tribunal found no reasonable prospect of success, as language is not a protected ground and there was no evidence it was used as a proxy for ancestry or place of origin.

Furthermore, there was no evidence the applicant requested accommodation for her disability or provided medical documentation supporting her restrictions.