Sean T. Jackson

The applicant sought judicial review of an HRTO decision dismissing his human rights complaint under s. 34(11) of the Human Rights Code.

The HRTO had found that the applicant's concurrent civil action for wrongful dismissal, which sought damages for intentional infliction of mental distress and moral damages based on the same factual matrix, barred the human rights application.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and upheld the HRTO's decision, finding it was reasonable to conclude that the civil claim essentially sought remedies for the same alleged Code infringements despite not explicitly pleading the Code.

The applicant filed a request to have C.W. named as litigation guardian, which was permitted under the Tribunal's rules.

The applicant also requested to remove 15 individually named respondents and add the organizational respondent, C.C.S.S., in their place.

With the consent of the individual respondents and no opposition from the proposed organizational respondent, the Tribunal granted the request.

The Tribunal also temporarily anonymized the parties' names pending a final ruling on the issue.

The plaintiff brought a wrongful dismissal action after being terminated without cause and without notice from a managerial position with the defendants.

The defendants’ statements of defence had been struck, resulting in the allegations in the statement of claim being deemed admitted at trial.

The plaintiff sought damages for unpaid bonuses and for wrongful dismissal, claiming six months’ pay in lieu of notice.

The court found the claimed six‑month notice period to be within a reasonable range and awarded damages for unpaid bonuses and wrongful dismissal, subject to deduction for salary already paid.

Prejudgment interest under the Courts of Justice Act and costs on a partial indemnity basis were also awarded.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex by her former church and its governing bodies, claiming they failed to properly investigate her complaints of spousal abuse and denied her due process in internal appeals.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect that the applicant could prove a link between the denial of her appeals and her sex, and noting that the respondents had no duty to investigate a discrimination complaint that was never made to them.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex by her church, its elders, and affiliated organizations, claiming she was denied pastoral care and forced to resign her membership following a marital breakdown.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed as it was filed outside the one-year statutory deadline.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's near five-year delay in filing regarding the initial incidents was not incurred in good faith, dismissing the allegations from 2003 to 2005 and removing the local church and its elders as respondents.

The Tribunal added two affiliated organizations as respondents and directed a summary hearing to determine if the remaining allegations regarding the internal appeal process had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicants, a married couple, alleged that the respondent church discriminated against them and subjected them to reprisal by denying them church membership.

The wife alleged reprisal for previously filing a human rights complaint against the church, while the husband alleged discrimination based on his marital status and association with his wife.

The Tribunal dismissed the applications after the applicants closed their case, finding they failed to establish a prima facie case.

The evidence showed the church deferred membership because the applicants had lived together prior to marriage, which the church sincerely believed was sinful, and because of ongoing unresolved conflicts and confrontational behaviour by the applicants, rather than for discriminatory or retaliatory reasons.

The respondent in four related human rights applications requested an order to defer or hold the hearings in abeyance until three other applications were resolved, arguing overlap in facts and issues.

The respondent's counsel also requested an adjournment due to scheduling conflicts.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for deferral, finding that the other applications dealt with discrete events and issues, and that deferral would not be the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed.

The Tribunal also denied the adjournment request, noting that counsel failed to request rescheduling within the required five-day period after receiving the hearing notice and that his unavailability did not constitute an extraordinary circumstance.

The respondent was dismissed from his employment after his daughter and wife accused his employer (who was his brother-in-law) of sexual abuse.

The respondent filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of marital and family status.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the enumerated grounds of marital and family status in the Ontario Human Rights Code are broad enough to encompass discrimination based on the particular identity of a complainant's spouse or family member.

The Court found that the respondent was arbitrarily disadvantaged based on stereotypical assumptions about his familial affiliations, constituting prohibited discrimination.

The appeal was dismissed.