Shane Smith

The parties consented to the removal of all individual respondents from the human rights complaint.

The Tribunal ordered their removal and amended the style of cause accordingly.

The respondent opposed the appointment of the applicant's mother as her litigation guardian, arguing she had a conflict of interest because her own actions were at issue in the dispute over the termination of the applicant's support services.

The Tribunal applied the test for litigation guardians, finding that a clear and demonstrated conflict of interest is required to disqualify a proposed guardian.

The Tribunal held that the mother's interest in vindicating her own actions did not conflict with her interest in pursuing the applicant's rights, and appointed her as litigation guardian.

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

The parties subsequently signed a settlement agreement resolving the applicant's grievance and human rights application.

The applicant later sought to proceed with her application, alleging she signed the settlement under duress from her union, family, and the employer.

The employer filed a contravention of settlement application, seeking damages for the applicant's failure to withdraw her application and for disclosing the settlement terms.

The Tribunal found no evidence of duress and dismissed the human rights application as an abuse of process.

The Tribunal also dismissed the employer's contravention application, finding that while a technical breach may have occurred, no further order or damages were appropriate.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario issued an interim decision granting ARCH Disability Law Centre leave to intervene in the proceeding.

The Tribunal also set a schedule for submissions regarding the applicant's request to appoint Sheila Barber as litigation guardian, noting the respondent's intention to argue a conflict of interest.

During a case management conference call in a human rights application, the respondent raised a preliminary issue regarding whether the applicant's litigation guardian, who holds powers of attorney for personal care and property, should be removed due to an alleged conflict of interest.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the applicant to file the relevant Power of Attorney and scheduling a teleconference hearing to determine whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to remove a litigation guardian under the Substitute Decisions Act.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination in the provision of medical services.

The Tribunal previously dismissed the application for failing to set out a prima facie case on the grounds of race, ancestry, colour, ethnic origin, place of origin, or marital status.

On its own motion, the Tribunal reconsidered its decision after the Commission noted that the ground of disability had been added to the complaint.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's allegations regarding physical restraints and lack of proper assessment due to a perceived mental disability were sufficient to establish a prima facie case.

The applicant's request to reconsider the dismissal of the other grounds was denied.

The respondent's request for production of medical and employment records was denied as irrelevant or premature.

The applicant alleged that the respondent Hospital discriminated against him by participating in a task force that distributed a questionnaire to prospective patients of newly recruited family physicians.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the Hospital could not be held vicariously liable for the actions of the independent task force or the physicians, who operated their practices independently.

Furthermore, merely asking questions related to Code grounds on a questionnaire is not a violation in itself.

The application was dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant filed an application under section 53(5) of the Human Rights Code.

The respondents argued that the applicant had previously filed and withdrawn a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission, barring her from filing under section 53 or section 34.

The Tribunal found that although the applicant submitted a complaint to the Commission prior to June 30, 2008, it was not "filed" within the meaning of section 53(1) because the Commission closed the file as withdrawn before formally filing or serving it.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the section 53(5) application, noting that the applicant was not precluded from filing a new application under section 34.

The applicant, a Black lab support assistant, alleged racial discrimination after her position was eliminated during restructuring and she failed to secure other positions through bumping or applying.

The employer provided evidence that she lacked the required certification for lab positions and scored significantly lower than other candidates on standardized clerical tests.

The Tribunal found no circumstantial evidence that race was a factor in the employer's decisions, concluding that the applicant's lack of qualifications and poor test scores were the true reasons for her not obtaining the positions.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint with the Commission before the transition date.

The Commission closed the file as 'withdrawn' after the applicant allegedly failed to respond to an intake officer, though the applicant claimed she had left messages.

The applicant then filed an application directly with the Tribunal under s. 34.

The respondents argued the application was barred by s. 53(8) of the Code.

The Tribunal held that because the applicant had not expressed an intention to withdraw the complaint and there was no statutory basis for the Commission's closure, the complaint was 'continued' within the meaning of s. 53(3).

The Tribunal assumed jurisdiction to process the application under the transition rules.

In an interim decision, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario considered whether it had jurisdiction over an application under the transitional provisions of the Human Rights Code.

The respondents argued that the Commission's submissions regarding when a complaint is considered 'filed' contradicted its own published statements.

The Tribunal ordered an oral hearing to determine the jurisdictional issue and directed the Commission to provide a further statement of facts explaining the apparent contradiction.

The applicant filed an application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code.

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, noting two outstanding grievances.

The Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application pending the conclusion of both grievances, as the applicant did not identify any circumstances to depart from the Tribunal's normal approach of deferring applications with ongoing grievances based on the same facts.

The CAW and UFCW filed competing applications for certification regarding employees at Coca-Cola's new Brampton facility.

UFCW Local 175 claimed existing bargaining rights based on a collective agreement provision extending rights to new facilities within a 50-mile radius if staffed by its members.

The Board declined to immediately order a representation vote, finding that the fundamental issue of whether UFCW Local 175 already held bargaining rights for the facility needed to be determined first.

The matter was scheduled for further hearing.