Wade Reginald Poziomka

The applicant school board sought judicial review of two Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decisions finding it discriminated against an employee by failing to accommodate her disability and ordering her reinstatement with damages.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's decisions on liability and remedy were reasonable and amply supported by the evidence.

The Court also rejected the applicant's arguments regarding procedural fairness and reasonable apprehension of bias.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the human rights application pending the outcome of the applicant's WSIB appeal regarding the cause of her workplace injuries.

The respondent also requested particulars regarding the applicant's alleged loss of benefit coverage.

The Tribunal denied the deferral request, finding that the WSIB appeal concerned the cause of the injury, which is irrelevant to the employer's duty to accommodate under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal also denied the request for particulars, noting they related exclusively to remedy and were not necessary for the respondent to file a full response.

The applicant, a hospital employee with physical restrictions due to workplace injuries, alleged that the hospital failed to accommodate his disability when it refused to consider him for a full-time cleaner position.

He also alleged that his union discriminated against him by discouraging him from seeking accommodated positions.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the hospital met its procedural duty to accommodate by repeatedly requesting updated medical information, which the applicant failed to provide.

Without this information, the hospital could not safely accommodate him in a physically demanding role.

The Tribunal also found the applicant's allegations against the union to be not credible.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of family status, claiming his contract was not renewed because of an issue involving his brother in the workplace.

The applicant argued his brother stood in a parent-child relationship to him.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success because the respondents had no knowledge of a parent-child type relationship between the siblings, and sibling status alone is not a protected ground under the Code.

The applicant requested an order to defer her human rights application pending the conclusion of her appeal regarding Long Term Disability (LTD) benefits, with the respondent's consent.

The Tribunal denied the request, holding that the LTD appeal was not a concurrent proceeding dealing with the same issues that could lead to inconsistent decisions.

The Tribunal further noted that it does not defer proceedings merely to facilitate settlement negotiations.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination based on disability.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the application because the allegations were part of an ongoing union grievance.

The applicant consented to the deferral but sought to attach conditions.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance proceeding but declined to attach the requested conditions, noting that the applicant could request reactivation in accordance with the Tribunal's Rules if her human rights issues were not appropriately dealt with.

The applicant, a suppression firefighter, sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision that summarily dismissed his age discrimination complaint regarding mandatory retirement at age 60.

The Tribunal had dismissed the complaint under Rule 19A, finding no reasonable prospect of success based on a previous test case (Espey) that upheld the mandatory retirement provision as a bona fide occupational requirement.

The Divisional Court held that the Tribunal's decision was reasonable, as the applicant failed to provide evidence demonstrating that the result in his case would differ from the established precedent.

The respondents requested an adjournment of a human rights hearing scheduled for March 17-19, 2014, citing late receipt of the applicant's documents, their own failure to comply with pre-hearing obligations, and the unavailability of a witness and one of the personal respondents.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the respondents had ample notice of the hearing since July 2013 and failed to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances justifying an adjournment as required by the Tribunal's Practice Direction.

The applicant, an elementary school teacher, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability and family status regarding her return to work following a medical leave.

The respondent school board sought summary dismissal of the application.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's allegations regarding the change of her volunteer placement to a different school raised triable issues regarding the procedural duty to accommodate and family status discrimination.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the allegations regarding her placement in a long-term occasional position rather than a permanent position, finding no evidence that her disability required a permanent position.

The application against the respondent union was also dismissed.

The applicant filed an Application alleging that the respondent breached a settlement agreement by failing to pay the agreed-upon installments.

The respondent failed to file a Response and was deemed to have accepted the allegations.

The Tribunal found that the respondent breached the settlement by failing to ensure sufficient funds were available for the cheques provided and by paying late.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the remaining $2,285.72 owed under the settlement, plus an additional $1,000 as monetary compensation for the harm caused by the breach.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend her human rights application to include the ground of reprisal.

The original application alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of pregnancy and disability.

The respondent did not file a response to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, noting that the amendment did not change the substance of the application and would not prejudice the respondent.

The applicant filed a human rights application against her former employer and two union locals.

Following her termination, a grievance was filed and an arbitrator was selected.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether the application against the union locals should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

All parties agreed the application should be deferred pending the grievance proceeding, but the union locals requested dismissal prior to deferral.

The Tribunal deferred the entire application, finding that the issue of whether there is no reasonable prospect of success against the union locals could be better assessed after the grievance proceeding concludes.

The respondents brought multiple requests for orders, including requests to dismiss the application for no reasonable prospect of success, no prima facie case, abuse of process, and delay.

The respondents also sought to remove the individual respondent, defer the application pending a Ministry of Labour investigation, and obtain early production of documents.

The Tribunal denied all of the respondents' requests, finding that the application disclosed a prima facie case of discrimination based on pregnancy and disability, the allegations were not clearly out of time, and the individual respondent's conduct was a central issue.

The request for early document production was denied as premature.

The applicant alleged that the respondent reprised against her for filing a previous sexual harassment application against the respondent's husband.

The respondent allegedly made loud and aggressive remarks about the applicant's sexual history at a public event.

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

Finding that the applicant had referenced potentially relevant testimony to substantiate her claims, the Tribunal concluded the application must proceed to a full hearing on its merits.

The respondent Union requested an order directing the applicant to provide further particulars regarding his marital status discrimination claim and to produce unedited recordings, medical documentation, and his complete employment file.

The Union also requested that the respondent City produce documents relating to performance evaluations.

The Tribunal dismissed the requests, finding that the applicant had already provided sufficient particulars in his witness statements and had disclosed the arguably relevant materials.

The Tribunal also found that the City's performance evaluation policies were not arguably relevant to the applicant's claim that his position was reclassified for discriminatory reasons.

The applicant requested a deferral of his human rights application and an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates to allow the parties to negotiate a global settlement that would also resolve a pending civil action.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the civil action involved different legal issues and that ongoing settlement negotiations do not constitute exceptional circumstances justifying an adjournment under the Tribunal's practice directions.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment on the basis of sexual solicitation and race by a co-worker, and a failure to investigate by the employer.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application for delay and having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that most of the applicant's allegations were untimely and did not form a 'series of incidents' under section 34(1) of the Code.

However, the Tribunal allowed the allegation regarding an incident on September 21, 2011, and the related failure to investigate claim, to proceed, finding they had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant requested to amend her human rights application to add allegations of discrimination based on sex, sexual orientation, sexual harassment, and reprisal.

The respondents consented to adding sex and reprisal but objected to sexual orientation and sexual harassment.

The Tribunal granted the request to add sex and reprisal because the supporting facts were in the original application and there was no prejudice.

The Tribunal denied the request to add sexual orientation and sexual harassment because the facts were unrelated to the original application, the request was made approximately two years after the alleged incidents, and allowing the amendment would prejudice the respondents.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of family status.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the applicant had commenced a civil suit based on the same facts.

The Tribunal found that the civil suit was a shareholder oppression action that did not allege human rights infringements or seek remedies for such violations.

The Tribunal concluded that section 34(11) did not apply and declined to defer the application, allowing it to proceed.

The applicant, a suppression firefighter, alleged age discrimination after being required to retire at age 60 pursuant to a collective agreement.

The respondents requested a summary hearing, arguing the application had no reasonable prospect of success based on a recent Tribunal decision that found mandatory retirement at age 60 for firefighters to be a bona fide occupational requirement.

The Tribunal held that the applicant failed to provide evidence or a reasonable basis beyond speculation to suggest the result would be different from the established jurisprudence.

The applications were dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.