Paula Rusak

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability approximately 17 months after her termination.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application as untimely under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued the delay was justified because she was waiting for the conclusion of a union grievance process and was unaware of the one-year limitation period.

The Tribunal found that waiting for other legal proceedings and ignorance of the law do not constitute good faith reasons for delay.

The application was dismissed as being outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that granted her request to withdraw her human rights application but imposed a term declaring her allegations unsubstantiated.

The Tribunal found that imposing such a term conflicted with established jurisprudence, which holds that a withdrawal does not implicate any finding on the substance of the allegations.

The Tribunal granted the reconsideration request and rescinded the term declaring the allegations unsubstantiated.

The applicant, a Road Service Technician, alleged discrimination and reprisal based on disability after sustaining two workplace shoulder injuries.

He claimed the respondent forced him to work beyond his medical restrictions, harassed him, and targeted him.

After the applicant's testimony at the hearing, the respondent moved to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found the applicant lacked credibility, noting his evasiveness and embellishment.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant was accommodated with modified duties and failed to establish any link between his alleged mistreatment and his disability, nor any evidence of reprisal.

The application was dismissed.

The respondents in a human rights application filed a request for particulars prior to the issuance of a Notice of Hearing.

The applicant did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal denied the request as premature, finding that the applicant had provided sufficient detail in his application and that further particulars would be addressed through document disclosure and witness statements once the matter was set down for a hearing.

The Tribunal also ordered the applicant to advise whether he intended to proceed with the application, as he had failed to respond to the respondents' last two requests.

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to remove the individual respondent as a party, arguing the corporate respondent would be vicariously liable for any proven discrimination or harassment.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the individual respondent's conduct was a central issue in the applicant's allegations of disability-based harassment and discrimination, making it inappropriate to remove him at this stage.

The applicant requested to reactivate, bifurcate, and consolidate two deferred human rights applications against the respondents.

The first application alleged discrimination based on disability and ethnic origin, while the second alleged reprisals.

The Tribunal granted the request to reactivate the applications due to anticipated delays in the applicant's related WSIAT appeal.

The Tribunal denied the request to bifurcate the issues, finding it would complicate the proceedings.

However, the Tribunal ordered the consolidation of the applications, concluding that the public interest in avoiding a multiplicity of proceedings and the presence of common issues outweighed any potential prejudice to the individual respondent.

The applicant sought to withdraw her human rights application on the morning of the first scheduled day of hearing.

The respondent requested costs and a declaration that the applicant was a vexatious litigant.

The Tribunal found insufficient grounds for a vexatious litigant declaration but noted the significant wasted resources and prejudice to the respondent.

The Tribunal granted permission to withdraw the application on the terms that the applicant is barred from filing future related applications against the respondent and that the allegations are declared unsubstantiated.

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

The application was initially deferred pending a related WSIB proceeding.

The respondent sought to dismiss the application for delay in reactivation after the WSIB allowed the claim.

The Tribunal found that the WSIB proceeding was not fully completed due to an ongoing psychological assessment and that related criminal proceedings against the alleged harasser were also relevant.

The Tribunal ordered the application to remain deferred until the conclusion of the criminal proceedings and the WSIB assessment.

Thames Emergency Medical Services (TEMS) requested to be removed as a respondent to a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability.

The applicant originally named Middlesex-London Emergency Medical Services Authority (MLEMSA) as the sole respondent, alleging discrimination when she was not offered employment after MLEMSA took over services from TEMS.

MLEMSA added the union as a respondent, and the union subsequently added TEMS.

Applying the Smyth test, the Tribunal found that the applicant had not raised any allegations against TEMS that could support a finding of a Code violation.

The request was granted and TEMS was removed as a respondent.

The respondents requested to dismiss the human rights application for delay and to remove the two named personal respondents.

The Tribunal found the application was timely, as the formal termination of employment and subsequent communications to Service Canada constituted incidents within the one-year limitation period.

The Tribunal also declined to remove the personal respondents, finding their alleged conduct in failing to accommodate the applicant's disability and terminating her employment was a central issue in the case.

Both requests were denied.

The respondent brought a preliminary request to dismiss the human rights application for delay.

The applicant alleged the respondent failed to accommodate her disability by refusing to offer modified work in 2006, 2008, and 2009.

The Tribunal found that the 2009 allegation was timely, but the 2006 and 2008 allegations occurred more than a year prior to the application.

The Tribunal held that the significant three-year gap between the 2006 and 2009 events broke any temporal connection, meaning they did not constitute a series of incidents under section 34(1)(b) of the Code.

The untimely allegations were dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability, marital status, and association.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant had an ongoing WSIB proceeding regarding a workplace injury.

Both parties submitted that the application should not be deferred.

The Tribunal found that the subject matter of the WSIB proceeding was not identical to the human rights application and that the WSIB proceeding was at a very early stage.

Consequently, the Tribunal declined to defer the application and ordered it to proceed.

The applicant filed a human rights application in 2012 alleging discrimination based on disability and reprisal.

The respondent raised preliminary objections, arguing that the applicant was attempting to revive allegations from a 2009 application that had been dismissed as abandoned, which would constitute issue estoppel or an abuse of process.

The Tribunal found that issue estoppel did not apply because the 2009 application was not decided on its merits.

However, the Tribunal held that it would be an abuse of process to permit the applicant to revive the 2009 allegations, as it would be manifestly unfair to the respondent.

The Tribunal also ruled on the scope of the application, permitting some allegations that were sufficiently identified in the pleadings while excluding completely new allegations.

Finally, the Tribunal dismissed the respondent's argument that the permitted allegations were out of time, finding they constituted a continuing contravention and a series of incidents under section 34(1) of the Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment by her former employer and union following a workplace injury.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed for delay and lack of reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the employer because it was filed more than one year after the last incident without a good faith explanation for the delay, and was barred by Minutes of Settlement.

The application against the union was dismissed because the Ontario Labour Relations Board had already dealt with the substance of the allegations and there was no reasonable prospect of proving the union's actions were discriminatory.

The applicant, aged 64, alleged age discrimination after being unsuccessful in a job competition for a full-time Fire Chief position.

The successful candidate was approximately 20 years younger.

The Tribunal applied a one-step circumstantial evidence test, rejecting the traditional three-step test.

The Tribunal found that the respondent provided rational, credible, and non-discriminatory reasons for its hiring decision, specifically that the successful candidate demonstrated a better grasp of current issues, proposed better solutions, and exhibited a more compatible, team-oriented management style during the interview.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought to reactivate her human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability after the conclusion of related WSIAT proceedings.

The respondent opposed reactivation and requested the application be dismissed for delay.

The Tribunal granted the request to reactivate, noting it was filed within the required 60-day period.

The Tribunal deferred the respondent's request to dismiss for delay to a teleconference hearing to determine whether the application was filed within the one-year time limit under section 34 of the Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging failure to accommodate a disability arising from a workplace injury.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed for delay, arguing the injury occurred more than a year prior to filing.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding the alleged failure to accommodate occurred within the one-year limitation period.

The Tribunal also granted the applicant's request to amend the application to remove individual respondents and declined to defer the matter, as the applicant was not actively pursuing a related WSIB appeal.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment on the ground of disability.

The applicant's union requested intervenor status, which was granted as per the Tribunal's standard practice.

The applicant also requested an extension of time to file a Reply, which was granted as the respondent identified no prejudice.

The applicant, a graduate student, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race, ethnic origin, and colour, as well as reprisal, against the respondent university and two individuals.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed because it was filed beyond the one-year time limit set out in section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the last alleged incident of discrimination occurred more than 12 months prior to the filing of the application.

The Tribunal also found that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation to establish that the delay was incurred in good faith.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability and age, over five years after his forced retirement.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intention to Dismiss due to the delay.

The applicant argued the delay was due to family issues and his belief that the respondent had made clerical errors.

The Tribunal found the delay was not incurred in good faith, as the applicant failed to act with reasonable diligence to uncover the alleged discrimination.

The application was dismissed.