Wade Reginald Poziomka

The applicant requested an adjournment of the hearing, citing late receipt of his file from former counsel and outstanding document disclosure from the respondent.

The respondent consented to the adjournment, noting it also required outstanding medical disclosure from the applicant to obtain an expert report.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, finding that the late retainer of counsel and outstanding disclosure did not constitute extraordinary circumstances under the Tribunal's Practice Direction.

The Tribunal ordered the parties to comply with disclosure rules and directed the respondent to disclose documents related to its review of alternative positions.

The respondent requested reconsideration of a decision that upheld a human rights application against it.

The respondent challenged the Tribunal's credibility findings and factual conclusions, arguing that the adjudicator failed to accept its evidence and relied on circumstantial evidence not pleaded.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the respondent was attempting to re-argue points made during the hearing and repair deficiencies in its case, which does not meet the limited grounds for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

The applicant alleged sexual harassment, sexual solicitation, and reprisal by the individual respondent and the corporate respondent.

The respondents brought a preliminary request to dismiss the application against the corporate respondent, arguing it is not liable for sexual solicitation by employees, and against the individual respondent, arguing she could not confer a benefit or advancement.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding it premature to dismiss the application against either respondent without hearing evidence on the issues under sections 7, 8, and 46.3 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant, a massage therapist, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by the College of Massage Therapists of Ontario regarding its investigation and disciplinary processes.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed for delay.

The Tribunal found that the most recent incidents relied upon by the applicant, including a formal caution, were inadmissible under section 36(3) of the Regulated Health Professions Act.

The remaining allegations occurred more than one year before the application was filed.

As the applicant provided no good faith explanation for the delay, the application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging the respondents failed to accommodate her disability-related needs and subjected her to reprisals.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the conclusion of an ongoing grievance proceeding dealing with the same core issue of accommodation.

The Tribunal found that deferral was the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed, as it avoids concurrent proceedings and the risk of inconsistent decisions.

The application was deferred pending the conclusion of the grievance proceeding.

The applicant filed a human rights application against a school board alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and family status in the provision of services.

After receiving the school board's response, the applicant requested to add the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, the CCAC, and Bayshore Home Health as respondents.

Applying the Smyth test, the Tribunal denied the request to add the Ministry, finding no direct service relationship covered by the Code.

However, the Tribunal granted the request to add the CCAC and Bayshore, as they potentially shared responsibility for the provision of nursing services to the applicant at school.

The respondents brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings to remove the personal respondent and dismiss parts of the human rights application as untimely.

The Tribunal granted the request to remove the personal respondent, finding that the organizational respondent had implicitly assumed liability for her actions.

The Tribunal deferred the issue of timeliness to the hearing adjudicator to determine whether the older factual assertions were separate allegations or context for timely allegations.

The applicant, a part-time cashier, was terminated at the end of her first shift back to work after a two-day absence due to hospitalization for heart tests.

The respondent claimed she was terminated for disrespectful behaviour during a discussion about a broken chair.

The Tribunal found the respondent's evidence lacked credibility and concluded that the respondent perceived the applicant to have a disability that would negatively impact her attendance.

The Tribunal held that the applicant was terminated because of this perceived disability, violating the Human Rights Code.

The applicant was awarded $15,000 for injury to dignity, $11,433.50 for lost wages, and the respondent was ordered to undergo human rights training.

The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination based on disability.

The Tribunal raised a preliminary issue regarding whether the respondent, a television broadcasting enterprise, falls under federal rather than provincial jurisdiction.

Applying the 'plain and obvious' test, the Tribunal found that the nature of the respondent's business and the applicant's duties were in dispute, and therefore it was not plain and obvious that the matter fell outside its jurisdiction.

The Tribunal directed that processing of the application continue.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant's request to amend the application to add place of origin and citizenship as prohibited grounds, finding no proper basis for the amendment.

The applicant alleged systemic discrimination based on race and ethnic origin against a Florida-based educational institute and its instructor, relating to courses taken in Ontario and other jurisdictions including New Hampshire.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal held that the applicant had standing to allege systemic discrimination on her own behalf.

However, the Tribunal determined it lacked jurisdiction over the allegations concerning the New Hampshire course, as the respondents were not based in Ontario and the services were provided outside the province.

The Tribunal also ruled on the applicant's document production requests, ordering limited disclosure of participant names from a Toronto course while denying broader requests as overly broad or irrelevant.

The parties jointly requested an order to anonymize the names of the applicant and the individual respondent in the Tribunal's decisions.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting that the previously released interim decisions contained highly sensitive information about the applicant's mental health.

The Tribunal balanced the public interest in open justice against the sensitive nature of the information and the small size of the academic program at issue.

The matter having been resolved, the Tribunal's file was closed.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding requested several interim orders, including permission to have the hearing transcribed by a court reporter and a change of venue from London to Toronto as an accommodation for her post-traumatic stress.

The Tribunal granted the request for a court reporter, ordering the applicant to provide transcripts to all parties at her expense.

The Tribunal denied the change of venue request, noting it was made less than a week before the hearing and that other accommodations could be provided in London.

A request for reconsideration of a prior interim decision was also denied as premature.

The applicant filed a human rights application against an organizational respondent and two individual respondents.

At the hearing, the parties engaged in mediation/adjudication and reached a settlement with the organizational respondent.

The applicant requested to withdraw the application against the individual respondents.

The Tribunal granted the request, dismissed the application against the individual respondents, and noted a closing letter would be issued regarding the organizational respondent.

The applicant, a student in a Masters of Physical Therapy Program, alleged discrimination based on perceived learning disability.

Three months before the hearing, she filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to amend her Application to add grounds of race, ancestry, colour, and ethnic origin, and seeking production of documents relating to other students.

The Tribunal denied the amendment request due to the late timing, the fundamental change to the nature of the case, and prejudice to the respondents.

The Tribunal also denied the production requests, finding that information about other students' disability screening and academic progression was not arguably relevant.

While the request for other students' exam scores was arguably relevant to the allegation of biased grading, the Tribunal could not order production because the exams had already been destroyed pursuant to the university's retention policy.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found discrimination on the basis of disability but denied damages for loss of income.

The applicant argued the adjudicator erred by relying on his length of service and failing to apply out-of-province case law.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the denial of wage loss was based on the applicant's work performance issues, which would have resulted in termination regardless of the discrimination.

The Tribunal also noted that it had properly considered and declined to follow the out-of-province cases.

The applicant failed to establish any criteria for reconsideration.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found a contravention of a settlement.

The applicant argued the Tribunal misapplied factors in assessing general damages and improperly assessed the respondent's intention.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant failed to establish that the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence or that other factors outweighed the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.

The respondent, Sharon Fair, brought a motion in writing to amend the Divisional Court's earlier written reasons, alleging clerical errors.

The applicant school board opposed the motion.

The court noted that the applicant had already obtained leave to appeal the judgment to the Court of Appeal.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that even if it had jurisdiction to amend its reasons, it would be unseemly to do so while an appeal was pending, and that justice would be better served by leaving the determination of any errors to the Court of Appeal.

The applicant filed an Application alleging the respondent contravened Minutes of Settlement by failing to pay the remaining $3,000 of a $4,000 settlement.

The respondent requested that his former employer, who allegedly agreed to pay the $3,000, be added as a party.

The Tribunal declined to add the former employer, finding no compelling reason to add a non-signatory.

The Tribunal found the respondent contravened the settlement and ordered him to pay the outstanding $3,000 plus $1,000 in damages for the financial and emotional harm caused to the applicant by the breach.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found a six-day delay in receiving a settlement payment was a de minimis breach of the minutes of settlement, for which no remedy was awarded.

The applicant argued the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence and that other factors outweighed the public interest in finality.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding the applicant merely disagreed with the adjudicator's conclusion and failed to demonstrate a clear departure from settled legal rules or any compelling circumstances to justify reconsideration.

The applicant filed a Contravention of Settlement Application alleging the respondents failed to pay settlement monies on time.

The respondents mailed the cheques two days before the due date, but they were received six days late due to a holiday weekend.

The Tribunal found a contravention occurred but deemed the breach de minimis.

Despite a clause in the settlement agreement stipulating $5,000 in damages for late payment, the Tribunal exercised its discretion under section 45.9(8) of the Human Rights Code and declined to order a remedy.