Paul Heath

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing based on race, colour, ancestry, and sex.

The respondent requested dismissal on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) directing the applicant to respond.

The applicant failed to respond to the NOID or file a Reply.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on race and colour against a taxi company and a personal respondent employed by Canadian National Railway (CN).

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the personal respondent, finding it lacked jurisdiction because CN is a federally regulated undertaking.

Regarding the organizational respondent, the Tribunal noted that the applicant's underlying allegations had already been investigated and dismissed by the Canadian Human Rights Commission and in a previous Tribunal application.

Consequently, the Tribunal ordered a summary hearing to determine whether the application has a reasonable prospect of success or should be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Code as an abuse of process.

The applicant, a taxi driver, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, and creed after the respondent taxi company fined him $220 for allegedly 'stealing' a fare from another driver.

The applicant claimed the internal complaint process was flawed and that the decision was driven by discriminatory animus from board members.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no evidence that the fine or the complaint process was influenced by any prohibited grounds under the Human Rights Code.

The complainant, who uses a motorized wheelchair, alleged discrimination when she was unable to find a designated handicapped parking space at the respondent's shopping plaza and was rudely told to leave a fire route by an employee.

The Board of Inquiry found that the failure to provide handicapped parking constituted adverse effect discrimination in the provision of services.

The Board rejected the respondent's arguments that the lack of a municipal by-law requiring such parking excused them from the duty to accommodate.

The Board ordered the respondent to provide a designated handicapped parking space and to pay the complainant $1,000 in damages.