Wade Reginald Poziomka

The applicant school board sought judicial review of an interim decision by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, which had refused to dismiss a human rights application early.

The underlying human rights application alleged discrimination and failure to accommodate related to a student's expulsion.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review as premature, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify interfering with an ongoing tribunal proceeding.

The court distinguished a previous case, noting there was no risk of inconsistent findings, no broad principle at stake, and the judicial review had caused delay.

The applicant requested that the Tribunal anonymize her Application, which alleged discrimination based on sex, sexual harassment, and sexual assault.

The respondents took no position on the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the allegations of sexual assault constituted an exceptional situation warranting a departure from the open court principle.

The applicant's request to amend the monetary remedy sought was deferred to the adjudicator assigned to the merits hearing.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding sought to amend his application to include new allegations of discriminatory comments and text messages regarding his disability, which he claimed to have discovered after filing the initial application.

The respondent opposed the amendment, arguing the new allegations were substantial, late, and untimely.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, noting that evidence of untimely allegations may be admissible as background context, and left the determination of whether the new allegations constituted separate, timely incidents of discrimination to the adjudicator hearing the merits.

The respondent school board requested early dismissal of a human rights application alleging discrimination in its disciplinary processes, arguing the matter was appropriately dealt with by the Child and Family Services Review Board (CFSRB) during an expulsion appeal.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the CFSRB only determined whether the applicant committed the acts and should be expelled under the Education Act, but did not review the respondent's disciplinary processes for discrimination.

The application will proceed.

The respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to amend its Response to the Application of Mr. Burmaster.

The applicant consented to the request, provided he could refer to the initial draft at the hearing.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding no prejudice to the applicants and noting that the hearing was still months away.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend his human rights application by adding C&W Services as a respondent and adding services and contracts as a social area.

The Tribunal applied the Smyth test and found it appropriate to add C&W Services, as the conduct of its employee was central to the allegations of failure to accommodate.

The Tribunal also granted the request to add the social area of goods, services and facilities, but denied the request to add contracts as there was no contractual relationship between the applicant and C&W Services.

The applicant alleged that the respondents discriminated against him on the basis of disability by refusing to pay out the commuted value of his pension while his employment status remained in dispute due to an outstanding human rights application.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success and for delay.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application, finding that the issues of adverse effect discrimination were more appropriately determined on a full evidentiary record, and that the application was filed within the one-year limitation period.

The respondents Bowland Dental Laboratories Inc. and the Estate of Frank Bowland requested an order to remove Frank Bowland as a respondent to the human rights application.

They argued that Frank Bowland acted solely as an officer and agent of the corporate respondent, and that the corporation could respond to and remedy any alleged Code breaches.

The applicant and the co-respondent Solaris opposed the request, arguing that Frank Bowland could be personally liable as the directing mind of the corporation, and that there was a risk the inactive corporate respondent could not fulfill a monetary remedy.

The Tribunal applied the Persaud factors and denied the request, finding that the individual respondent could be held personally liable and that his removal could prejudice the applicant and co-respondent.

The respondent Hospital brought preliminary requests to dismiss the Application against it, dismiss certain allegations for delay, and schedule a summary hearing.

The applicant alleged discrimination based on disability regarding her accommodation and the transfer of her seniority between bargaining units.

The Tribunal denied the Hospital's requests, finding that conflicting evidence regarding the recognition of seniority and the complex issue of accommodation required a full hearing on the merits.

The Tribunal also noted that historical events were included only for context, making a dismissal for delay unnecessary.

The applicant requested to reactivate her deferred human rights application after her union withdrew her related grievance.

The respondent did not oppose reactivation but requested the application be dismissed for delay, arguing the allegations fell outside the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal granted the request to reactivate the application.

However, noting it had not received the applicant's medical evidence intended to explain the delay, the Tribunal ordered the applicant to file the medical evidence within 7 days before deciding on the request to dismiss.

The respondent employer brought a request to dismiss or defer the applicant's human rights application.

The respondent argued that a labour arbitrator had exclusive jurisdiction over the unionized employee's claims, that the claims were already settled through the grievance process, or that the matter should be deferred pending WSIB appeals.

The Tribunal dismissed the requests, finding that it has concurrent jurisdiction with labour arbitrators over human rights claims by unionized employees, that the applicant had not voluntarily agreed to the grievance settlements, and that there were no pending WSIB appeals.

The applicant, a former business agent and secretary/treasurer of the respondent union local, alleged discrimination, harassment, and reprisal on the basis of disability.

He claimed that after disclosing his depression and anxiety, the respondent failed to accommodate him and subjected him to harassing communications and reprisal.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant had a disability, his communications did not amount to a request for accommodation that triggered the respondent's duty to accommodate.

The Tribunal also found that the respondent's communications were not harassing or reprisal, but rather standard oversight and requests to perform essential duties.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal regarding a request for a medical leave of absence following her maternity leave.

The respondents requested the removal of three individual management staff as respondents.

The applicant requested to amend her application to add new allegations regarding a subsequent return to work process.

The Tribunal granted the request to remove the individual respondents, finding the corporate respondent was fully liable and capable of remedying any infringement.

The Tribunal denied the applicant's request to amend the application, finding the new allegations were different in nature and would cause significant delay to the scheduled hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal after being denied several positions with the respondent.

The respondent argued that a prior settlement agreement and release barred the applicant from raising allegations about job competitions that pre-dated the settlement.

The Tribunal held that the release barred the applicant from pursuing allegations about positions that pre-dated the execution of the settlement.

The applicant was permitted to proceed with allegations regarding two positions that post-dated the settlement, but was prohibited from challenging the reasons for his 2012 termination.

The applicant requested an order during proceedings to amend her human rights application to increase and particularize her claim for monetary compensation, and to add reinstatement and human rights training to her requested remedies.

The respondents did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal granted the amendment, finding no prejudice to the respondents.

The Tribunal also granted a joint request for an extension of time to file documents and witness statements.

The appellant School Board appealed a Divisional Court decision upholding the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario's finding that it failed to accommodate the respondent employee's disability and ordering her reinstatement.

The employee had developed a psychiatric impairment due to the stress of her position and was unable to return to her previous role.

The Tribunal found that the School Board failed to accommodate her by not placing her in available alternative positions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal's decisions on both liability and the remedy of reinstatement were reasonable and entitled to deference.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application for being filed outside the one-year limitation period.

The applicant argued the Tribunal made an error of law in interpreting s. 36(3) of the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, which the Tribunal had relied on to find that a caution issued by the respondent's committee could not be admitted as an incident of discrimination.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that the applicant was merely attempting to re-argue her case and that the proposed reconsideration did not involve a matter of general or public importance.

The applicant alleged age discrimination and reprisal after receiving over two years' working notice of termination.

The respondent requested dismissal of the termination and early retirement allegations, arguing they were filed outside the one-year limitation period under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code, which it claimed began when notice was given.

The Tribunal held that the limitation period for a termination begins on the effective date of the termination, not the date notice is given.

As the applicant was still in his working notice period, the termination allegation was not out of time.

The Tribunal deferred issues of prematurity and the timeliness of the specific termination meeting events to the hearing adjudicator.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability, claiming his pay was reduced and he was constructively dismissed.

The applicant subsequently requested to defer the Tribunal proceedings pending the conclusion of a related civil action he commenced against the respondent in the Superior Court of Justice.

The respondent consented to the deferral.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that deferral was appropriate to avoid adjudicative duplication and inconsistent results, given the overlap in factual background and remedies sought.

The respondent requested an order dismissing the applicant's age discrimination application for delay.

The application alleged four discriminatory incidents, including a 2008 demotion, denial of performance bonuses since 2008, denial of a cost of living increase in 2014, and reduction of job duties in 2014.

The Tribunal found that the 2014 incidents were timely.

The ongoing denial of performance bonuses was left for evidence at the hearing to determine if it constituted a series of incidents.

However, the 2008 demotion allegation was dismissed for delay, as it lacked a sufficient nexus to the timely allegations and the applicant provided no good faith explanation for the delay.