Porter Heffernan

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by the respondent college approximately six and a half years after his expulsion from a veterinary technician program.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine if the application was out of time under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued that his mental health disability prevented him from filing earlier and that he was unaware of the process.

The Tribunal found that the medical evidence did not establish a substantial inability to pursue his legal rights during the limitation period, and that ignorance of the law is not a valid excuse.

The application was dismissed for delay.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding proposed to call an occupational therapist as an expert witness to testify about the stowage of her wheelchair in taxi cabs.

The respondent opposed the qualification.

The Tribunal qualified the witness as an expert but limited the scope of her testimony.

The Tribunal allowed evidence regarding the cost and damage associated with improper trunk stowage, but excluded evidence on the applicant's specific use of the device and safety concerns with accessible minivans, finding those topics unnecessary given the evidence already heard.

The applicant brought a Request for Order During Proceedings to amend her Application to claim $25,000 as monetary compensation for injury to dignity and self-respect, having originally sought $1.

The respondent opposed the late request, arguing prejudice.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, noting that amendments to remedial claims have been allowed up to the start of a hearing, and addressed any potential prejudice by allowing the respondent to file an amended Response.

The applicant alleged discrimination and reprisal by the respondent hospital, claiming he was seen by a fake doctor who prescribed him a high dose of medication as part of a conspiracy to make him lose a prior human rights application.

He also alleged reprisal through the denial of his medical records.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success as the applicant could point to no evidence linking the alleged events to his race, colour, or ethnic origin, nor any evidence of reprisal.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and creed.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the facts of the application were part of an ongoing union grievance.

The respondent supported deferral, while the applicant did not file submissions.

The Tribunal deferred the application to avoid inconsistent decisions, as the issues in both proceedings overlapped significantly.

The applicant requested that he and his witnesses be permitted to testify by telephone conference call at the upcoming hearing due to the expense and inconvenience of travelling from British Columbia to Ottawa.

The respondent objected, arguing that credibility was a central issue and live evidence was essential.

The Tribunal denied the request for the applicant and his girlfriend, finding that their presence was necessary to ensure a fair opportunity for cross-examination and to allow the Tribunal to fairly assess credibility.

The Tribunal deferred its decision regarding a third witness until detailed statements of fact were exchanged.