Wade R. Poziomka

The applicant sought judicial review of an HRTO decision dismissing his human rights complaint under s. 34(11) of the Human Rights Code.

The HRTO had found that the applicant's concurrent civil action for wrongful dismissal, which sought damages for intentional infliction of mental distress and moral damages based on the same factual matrix, barred the human rights application.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and upheld the HRTO's decision, finding it was reasonable to conclude that the civil claim essentially sought remedies for the same alleged Code infringements despite not explicitly pleading the Code.

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, 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 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.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing and a six-month deferral of his human rights application to explore a civil action, class action, and grievance under a collective agreement.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request because the applicant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances as required by the Practice Direction.

The Tribunal also denied the deferral request because there was no ongoing grievance or other legal proceeding to defer to, and the matter was already at an advanced stage.