Toby Young

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision that dismissed his human rights application at the summary hearing stage.

The applicant alleged discrimination with respect to services based on race and colour after an incident at the respondent's store where he was accused of harassing a customer and asked to leave.

The Tribunal denied the reconsideration request, finding that the original decision was not in conflict with established jurisprudence regarding summary hearings or racial profiling, as the applicant failed to provide any circumstantial evidence connecting the respondent's actions to his race or colour.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that the Human Rights Legal Support Centre discriminated against him on the basis of race when it declined to represent him at a mediation for a separate employment discrimination case.

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

The Tribunal found that the Centre's decision not to represent the applicant was based on its assessment of the evidentiary merits of his case, not his race.

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

The complainant requested that the name of the corporate respondent in a previous Tribunal decision be corrected to reflect a legal name change that occurred before the decision was issued.

The respondents opposed the request, arguing it was out of time and the Tribunal lacked authority.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding it had the power under section 21.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act to correct errors similar to typographical errors at any time, and alternatively, the power to correct an error made in expressing its manifest intention.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability when she was not hired for a position with the Ministry of Education.

She originally named the Director of the Provincial Schools Branch as the sole respondent.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application for improperly naming her in her personal capacity.

The applicant subsequently requested an order to remove the individual respondent and add the Ministry as the organizational respondent.

The Tribunal applied the test for adding a respondent, found that the request was made at an early stage with no actual prejudice, and granted the amendment.

The respondent's request for a summary hearing was denied.

The applicants brought a human rights application alleging that certain City of Toronto zoning by-laws discriminate against persons with disabilities by limiting the availability of supportive housing.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission filed a Notice of Intervention with the applicants' consent under section 37(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The City objected, arguing the Tribunal should first determine its preliminary jurisdictional challenges.

The Tribunal dismissed the City's objection, holding that under section 37(2), the Commission is entitled to intervene as of right as a full party and does not merely request permission.

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

The Tribunal scheduled a hearing for October 13, 2010.

The applicant failed to comply with disclosure rules and did not attend the hearing.

The respondent attended and requested the application be dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was aware of the hearing but decided not to attend.

As the applicant failed to provide evidence in support of his allegations, the application was dismissed.