Roger Mills

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her application alleging the respondent school board contravened a settlement agreement.

The applicant argued the school board breached confidentiality by disclosing its own contravention application to two individuals who were respondents in the original application but did not sign the minutes of settlement.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish that the original decision conflicted with established case law or Tribunal procedure, or that the matter involved an issue of general or public importance.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

The Tribunal waited 30 minutes, but neither the applicant nor his counsel appeared.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had abandoned the application and dismissed it.

The applicants, a father and his two children, alleged that the respondent school board discriminated against them on the basis of family status by failing to accommodate their request to ensure school communications reached both separated parents.

The respondent requested that the applications be dismissed at a summary hearing for having no reasonable prospect of success, arguing that accommodation was provided and that communicating with parents is not a service to students.

The Tribunal found that the applicants pointed to evidence which, if accepted, indicated a failure to accommodate, and that a full hearing was necessary to determine the merits and whether communicating with parents constitutes a service to students.

The request to dismiss the applications was denied.

The applicant, who was 17 years old at the time of the material events, filed an application alleging discrimination in the provision of goods and services because of age after being denied admission to the respondent's school.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, noting that section 10(1) of the Human Rights Code defines 'age' as 18 years or more, and there was no constitutional challenge to this definition.

The applicant requested early disclosure and production of an Investigative Report related to her workplace complaint, arguing it was relevant to her allegations of reprisal.

The respondents opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the request as premature, noting that early production is only ordered in exceptional circumstances, which the applicant failed to demonstrate.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to services because of creed.

The Tribunal scheduled a summary hearing to address the respondents' request to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

Despite clear directions and warnings from the Tribunal that failure to attend would result in dismissal, the applicant's Next Friend refused to attend the scheduled hearing, stating an intention to seek judicial review instead.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant, a teacher, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability.

The application was deferred pending the outcome of a concurrent grievance process.

During the arbitration hearing, after settlement discussions failed, the applicant withdrew her grievance to pursue the human rights application.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the grievance process had appropriately dealt with the substance of the application, and that proceeding would be an abuse of process.

The Tribunal found that section 45.1 did not apply because the arbitrator had not considered the merits of the case.

The Tribunal also held that allowing the application to proceed was not an abuse of process, as there was no finality in the arbitration and no manifest unfairness to the respondents.

The applicant was permitted to continue the application.

The applicant, a high school student, alleged discrimination on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, and creed after being disciplined and transferred to another school.

The respondents sought early dismissal on the basis that the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period.

The Tribunal found that the last alleged incident of discrimination occurred in late 2008, and the application was filed approximately six months late in June 2010.

The Tribunal rejected the applicant's arguments that the discrimination was ongoing or that the delay was incurred in good faith due to fear of reprisal or lack of legal representation.

The application was dismissed.

The respondent school board brought a request for an order during proceedings seeking production of the applicant's medical documents related to her alleged environmental sensitivities.

The applicant objected to producing documents from a hospital assessment that contradicted her treating physicians' diagnosis.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding the documents highly relevant to determining whether the applicant has a disability and what accommodation she requires, and ordered the applicant to produce the requested clinical notes and hospital records at her own expense.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming her employer and union failed to accommodate her sensitivity to scented products.

The respondent union and its representative requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application against them for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to attend the teleconference hearing despite receiving proper notice.

The Tribunal proceeded in her absence and dismissed the application against the union and its representative, finding no factual foundation or allegations of differential treatment that could establish a Code violation regarding the union's representation.

The applicant, a 12-year-old student with a developmental disability, alleged discrimination, reprisal, and breach of settlement against the respondent school board regarding an incident where she refused to bring her backpack into the classroom.

The Tribunal admitted a surreptitious audio recording of the incident into evidence.

The Tribunal found that the school staff did not berate the applicant but coaxed her and provided incentives, modifying their approach appropriately.

The Tribunal concluded that the respondent did not fail to accommodate the applicant's disability and dismissed the application.

The respondents brought a request for an order during proceeding to remove three individual employees as personal respondents to the human rights application.

The applicant opposed the request, arguing that she sought apologies from the individuals and that their conduct was central to her claim of failure to accommodate her multiple chemical sensitivities.

The Tribunal applied the Persaud factors and granted the request, finding that the corporate respondent acknowledged vicarious liability for the employees' actions and was fully capable of remedying any Code infringement found.

The personal respondents were removed as parties.

The respondent sought early dismissal of portions of a human rights application alleging the removal of special education services in 2003 (Issue B).

The Tribunal previously found that the Ontario Human Rights Commission had dismissed an earlier complaint regarding a 2001 failure to accommodate (Issue A) because the applicant failed to cooperate by providing updated medical assessments.

The Tribunal held it would be an abuse of process to proceed with Issue B unless the applicant could show she provided new assessment information to the respondent.

Finding that the applicant's 2004 medical letter merely restated her refusal to undergo a new assessment, the Tribunal concluded the applicant was attempting to relitigate issues already determined by the Commission.

The portions of the application relating to Issue B were dismissed as an abuse of process.

The respondent school board requested the early dismissal of a human rights application alleging discrimination in the provision of special education services.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations relating to a 2004 injury as an abuse of process, finding that a prior court decision in a defamation action had already concluded the applicant was not injured.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss allegations regarding a 2005 disciplinary incident, as it had not been adjudicated by the court.

The Tribunal deferred its decision on whether allegations regarding the removal of services in 2003 constituted an abuse of process, pending further evidence on whether the applicant had cooperated in the accommodation process.

The applicant, a Black single mother, alleged discrimination based on race, colour, and family status by her son's school principal and the school board.

The allegations stemmed from a series of conflicts regarding her son's discipline, culminating in the principal reporting potential physical abuse to the Children's Aid Society after the son stated his mother hit him with a belt.

The CAS subsequently apprehended the children, and the school issued a trespass notice to the applicant.

The Tribunal found that the principal acted appropriately and in accordance with his training and legal obligations in reporting the matter to the CAS, and that none of the respondents' actions were tainted by discrimination.

The application was dismissed.

The individual respondents, supported by the corporate respondent school board, requested to be removed as parties to a human rights complaint alleging systemic discrimination on the grounds of race and disability.

The complainant opposed the request, arguing the individuals should be held personally accountable.

The Tribunal granted the request, applying the Persaud factors.

The Tribunal found that the corporate respondent had assumed liability for the employees' conduct, was in the best position to remedy the alleged systemic discrimination, and that removing the individuals would not prejudice the complainant's right to a full hearing or the availability of remedies.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment based on disability, specifically focusing on the employer's failure to provide an appropriate ergonomic chair.

The respondents filed an incomplete Response, requesting early dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code on the basis that the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) had exclusive jurisdiction over the issues.

The Tribunal denied the request for early dismissal, finding that the WSIB process had not appropriately dealt with the substance of the human rights application, and ordered the respondents to file a complete Response.

The complainant, a student with disabilities, filed a human rights complaint alleging the school board and several individuals failed to accommodate his needs.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed three preliminary issues.

The Tribunal denied the complainant's request to add another teacher as a personal respondent, finding no meaningful procedural or substantive benefit.

The Tribunal also dismissed the respondents' objection to the scope of the Commission's statement of facts, ruling that the new allegations formed part of the continuum of events related to the alleged failure to accommodate.

Finally, the Tribunal granted the complainant's request to file his own statement of facts, issues, and remedy, as the respondents demonstrated no prejudice.

The parent appealed directly to the Special Education Tribunal regarding the identification and placement of her child, bypassing the Special Education Appeal Board.

The school board consented to the Tribunal hearing the appeal despite the procedural defect.

The Tribunal held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the parent had not exhausted all rights of appeal as required by section 57(3) of the Education Act.

The Tribunal declined to assume jurisdiction by consent and recommended mediation or following the statutory appeal process.

The parents of an eleven-year-old student with multiple exceptionalities appealed a school board decision placing the student in a segregated special needs school.

The parents sought full-time placement in a regular class with a total communication package and a one-to-one educational assistant.

The Tribunal found that the student's needs were not being met in the fully integrated primary grade placements due to academic frustration and escalating behaviours, but also found that a fully segregated placement was not required.

The Tribunal ordered a semi-integrated placement, directing that the student be placed in a Grade 7 regular class for non-academic subjects and a Dual Diagnosis class for academic instruction, supported by a comprehensive behaviour management plan.