T. Kirk Boyd

The applicant filed an Application for Contravention of Settlement alleging the respondents breached a settlement regarding parking accommodations.

The Tribunal found that no settlement had been agreed to in writing and signed by the parties, as required by section 45.9 of the Human Rights Code.

Consequently, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear the application, and it was dismissed.

The applicant, a condominium resident with a disability, alleged discrimination and reprisal after the respondents refused to accommodate his request to park his oversized truck in an above-ground spot.

The respondents' underground parking garage could not accommodate the truck's height.

Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success.

The medical evidence did not establish a disability-related need for the specific vehicle, rendering the applicant's choice a personal preference rather than a requirement triggering the duty to accommodate.

The reprisal allegations were also dismissed as speculative and lacking evidence of retaliatory intent.

The applicant in a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing based on disability requested that the adjudicator recuse herself and reconsider procedural decisions made during the hearing.

The applicant sought reconsideration of decisions not to hear similar fact evidence at that stage and regarding the role of his co-agent.

He also sought recusal on the basis that the adjudicator may have predetermined that he did not have a disability.

The Tribunal denied the requests, finding that procedural rulings are not final decisions subject to reconsideration, and that there was no reasonable apprehension of bias or predetermination to warrant recusal.