Mikaila Greene

The respondent requested an order deferring mediation in this human rights application until the Tribunal rendered a decision in a summary hearing for a separate but related application.

Both applications concerned whether the requirement that service dogs be trained and certified by an accredited facility to receive the Guide Dog Benefit is discriminatory.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the outcome of the related summary hearing would be highly relevant to the mediation and that deferral would not cause significant delay.

The applicant brought a motion to add the Ministry of Community and Social Services and United Counties of Leeds and Grenville Ontario Works as respondents to her human rights application alleging discrimination regarding the denial of a Guide Dog Benefit.

The applicant also requested an in-person summary hearing as an accommodation for her disabilities.

The Tribunal granted both requests, noting the lack of opposition from the proposed respondents and applying the test for adding respondents.

The applicant filed a Contravention of Settlement Application alleging the respondent failed to pay $15,000 and implement public interest remedies agreed to in Minutes of Settlement.

The respondent did not file a Response but participated in the hearing, acknowledging the breach.

The Tribunal found the respondent contravened the settlement and ordered the payment of the $15,000 settlement amount, plus $3,000 in general damages for the distress caused by the breach, and directed the implementation of the remaining non-monetary terms.

The applicant filed a Contravention Application alleging that the respondent failed to pay financial compensation as part of a settlement.

The applicant requested an order to amend the current application and the closed application to reflect the respondents' proper legal names.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend the current application but denied the request to amend the closed application, finding it was functus officio.

The Tribunal also directed the applicant to explain why Epiqvision Inc. was named as a respondent when no breach was alleged against it.

The applicant filed two applications alleging breach of a prior settlement and reprisal by the respondents.

The applicant brought a request to amend the reprisal application to include incidents that allegedly occurred after the settlement was signed.

The Tribunal granted the amendment, finding no prejudice to the respondents given the early stage of the proceedings.

A personal respondent also requested to be removed from the application, arguing she had no decision-making power in the organization.

The Tribunal denied this request as premature, noting that her role remained unclear prior to the exchange of documents and development of an evidentiary record.