Osborne Barnwell

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the resolution of his WSIB claim.

The applicant argued that his legal representative had inadvertently failed to respond to the original deferral request.

The respondent opposed the reactivation, noting that the WSIB proceedings were ongoing and that reactivation could result in inconsistent findings.

The Tribunal denied the request to reactivate, finding no basis to do so while the WSIB process had not yet concluded.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application as abandoned.

The application had been dismissed after the applicant failed to comply with pre-hearing disclosure rules and failed to respond to a Case Assessment Direction warning of dismissal.

The applicant argued he was trying to secure legal representation and was unaware of who to contact.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to establish any new facts or other criteria under Rule 26 to justify reconsideration, noting his complete failure to communicate with the Tribunal prior to the deadline.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The respondent requested the dismissal of the applicant's human rights application on various preliminary grounds, including that the allegations were barred by a prior settlement agreement, were out of time, had no reasonable prospect of success, or constituted an abuse of process.

The Tribunal found that some allegations were barred by the settlement agreement and others were out of time without a good faith explanation for the delay.

The Tribunal also dismissed an allegation based on an oral collateral agreement allegedly made at mediation, applying the parol evidence rule.

However, the Tribunal allowed several other allegations to proceed, finding they were not barred by the settlement and had a reasonable prospect of success.

The request to dismiss the application as a whole for abuse of process was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed at a preliminary hearing on the basis that the applicant had previously signed Minutes of Settlement and a Final Release and Indemnity regarding her termination.

The applicant argued she signed under duress and did not understand the documents.

The Tribunal found no evidence of duress or lack of understanding, noting she received a severance package exceeding statutory minimums and had union representation.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the employer as an abuse of process, and dismissed the application against the union and its counsel as having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application as abandoned.

The application was filed beyond the one-year limitation period under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued the delay occurred because he initially filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission in error.

The Tribunal found this did not constitute a good faith explanation for the delay, as the applicant failed to make timely inquiries about the correct forum before the limitation period expired.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed and the application remained dismissed.

The applicant, a police officer, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability, race, and reprisal against the Police Services Board, the Police Association, and a third-party disability management provider.

At a preliminary hearing, the Tribunal considered the applicant's requests to amend his application, the respondents' requests to dismiss certain allegations for delay and as having been dealt with in a prior proceeding, and the third-party provider's request to be removed as a respondent.

The Tribunal allowed some amendments but denied others due to delay, struck allegations previously dealt with by the OHRC, dismissed several historical allegations for delay as they did not form a series of incidents, and refused to remove the third-party provider as a respondent because its role in adjudicating sick leave and accommodation requests was inextricably linked to the applicant's employment.

The applicant requested leave to amend his human rights application to allege that a City of Waterloo by-law violated the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the proposed amendment did not assert any basis upon which the by-law could be found to violate the Code, as it did not link the alleged discrimination to any protected ground.

The Tribunal also ordered that the applicant's two applications be consolidated and heard together, as they involved the same parties and essentially the same issues.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking leave to amend his human rights application to add further particulars regarding an alleged reprisal.

The respondents did not oppose the request, provided no costs were ordered against them.

The Tribunal applied the factors from Aubin and granted the amendment, noting it was sought at an early stage and caused no prejudice to the respondents.

The Tribunal also confirmed it has no jurisdiction to award costs.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal had previously found that the applicant's work was integral to an interprovincial transportation undertaking, placing it under federal jurisdiction.

In his reconsideration request, the applicant attempted to re-argue the merits and raised concerns about the Canadian Human Rights Commission not yet accepting jurisdiction.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding no conflict with established jurisprudence and noting that reconsideration is not an opportunity to re-argue a case.

The applicant, employed as an offloader/lumper, filed a human rights application against his former employer.

The respondents brought a request for an order during proceedings to dismiss the application, arguing the corporate respondent was a federally-regulated inter-provincial transportation undertaking.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's work was functionally connected and integral to the employer's interprovincial transportation operations.

Consequently, the employment relationship fell under federal jurisdiction, and the application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant requested reconsideration of an interim decision that directed the application to proceed against the police services board as the sole respondent.

The applicant had failed to comply with a previous direction to serve a Request to Add a Party on the individual police officers he sought to add as respondents.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the test for reconsideration, as there were no compelling circumstances explaining his failure to comply with the Tribunal's clear direction.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant, a restaurant owner, alleged that a parking enforcement officer engaged in a campaign to drive him out of business by discriminatorily ticketing his customers' cars and making racist comments.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's evidence regarding the alleged racist comments and discriminatory ticketing was not credible or in harmony with the preponderance of probabilities.

The application was dismissed as the applicant failed to prove discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant sought to amend his human rights application to add 32 additional incidents of alleged racial profiling by police between 2006 and 2012, and to add 52 individual police officers as respondents.

The respondent objected, arguing the incidents were out of time and did not constitute a 'series of incidents'.

The Tribunal found that the additional incidents, which all involved the applicant being stopped by police while walking or driving, formed a series of incidents under s. 34(1) of the Code and were therefore timely.

The Tribunal allowed the amendment to add the incidents but ordered the applicant to serve the request on the individual officers before determining whether they could be added as respondents.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging race and disability discrimination, as well as reprisal, during her employment with the respondent Ministry.

The respondents challenged the timeliness of the application, as most allegations occurred more than a year before filing.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine if the untimely allegations formed a 'series of incidents' with the timely reprisal claim or if the delay was incurred in good faith.

The Tribunal found that allegations prior to May 2009 were discrete and separated by temporal gaps, and thus did not form a series of incidents.

Furthermore, the applicant's pursuit of internal grievances did not constitute a good faith reason for the delay.

The allegations prior to May 2009 were dismissed as untimely.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the hearing six days before it was scheduled to begin, citing his counsel's heavy workload and lack of preparation.

The respondents opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding that a heavy workload does not constitute an extraordinary circumstance under its Practice Direction to justify a late adjournment request.

This is a remedy decision following a finding that the respondent police officers discriminated against the applicant by making a derogatory comment during fingerprinting and by inappropriately contacting his employer (the Department of National Defence) about his arrest.

The applicant sought over $1.4 million in damages, primarily for lost wages, arguing the police call caused his termination.

The Tribunal found the employer conducted its own investigation and the police call did not cause the job loss, denying the wage loss claim.

The Tribunal awarded $13,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect based on the objective seriousness of the call and the subjective impact of the events on the applicant.

Claims for legal and transcript costs were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because his counsel was required to appear in Superior Court.

The respondents did not consent.

The Tribunal found that the scheduling conflict constituted an exceptional circumstance justifying an adjournment under its Practice Direction.

The request was granted and the parties were directed to propose new hearing dates.

The applicant, a restaurant owner of Somali origin, alleged that a parking enforcement officer targeted him and his patrons by issuing parking tickets and making racist comments.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed because many of the allegations related to events that occurred more than a year before the application was filed.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations relating to the period from 2002 to 2005, finding they were not part of a series of incidents with the later events and that there was no good faith explanation for the delay.

The Tribunal ordered a half-day oral hearing to hear evidence regarding the alleged discriminatory comments made in 2009 and 2010.

The respondents requested an order to remove the individual respondent, Marsha Smith, from the human rights application.

The organizational respondent, the Ministry of Government Services, accepted vicarious liability for the alleged discriminatory conduct, which arose in the context of employment.

Applying the factors from Persaud, the Tribunal found no compelling reason to continue the proceeding against the individual respondent, as the Ministry could remedy any Code infringement and the applicant would not be prejudiced.

The request was granted and the application was dismissed against the individual respondent.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, ancestry, ethnic origin, place of origin, age, and reprisal, following the termination of her employment.

The respondent claimed the termination was due to funding cuts.

At a summary hearing, the Tribunal found that the applicant's allegations, if proven, could establish a connection to the Code, and therefore declined to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal also removed one personal respondent and declined to add another, noting the corporate respondent accepted full liability for their actions.