Wendy Lopez

The applicant filed two separate human rights applications against the same respondents.

The respondents requested that the applications be consolidated, that they be dismissed for delay, and that the personal respondents be removed.

The Tribunal ordered the consolidation of the two applications as they involved the same parties and factual overlap.

The Tribunal scheduled a preliminary hearing to determine the issues of delay and the removal of the personal respondents.

The applicant requested to amend their human rights application to add an allegation of reprisal, claiming the respondent school board made a report to the Children's Aid Society in retaliation for the application.

The respondent opposed the amendment, arguing it was untimely and barred by the Child and Family Services Act (CFSA).

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, finding it more efficient to deal with the issue in the current proceeding and that the CFSA does not automatically bar such allegations.

However, the Tribunal directed the applicant to explain what evidence would be available to prove the report was made maliciously or without reasonable grounds, given the high threshold established by the CFSA.

The applicant, a nine-year-old with Autism Spectrum Disorder, brought a human rights application against the school board, the Ministry of Education, and personal respondents regarding special education accommodations.

At a preliminary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the application against the Ministry of Education, finding it had no Code-related obligation to oversee individual school board accommodations.

The personal respondents were removed on consent.

The parties reached an agreement establishing a process for the applicant to return to school, resolving the request for an interim order.

The applicant filed an application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code alleging discrimination in contracts on the basis of race.

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

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled telephone conference hearing.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the applicant's human rights complaint alleging age discrimination and reprisal.

The applicant opposed the request and brought a Request for Order During Proceedings to amend his application to add the ground of disability.

The Tribunal denied the respondent's request for a summary hearing, finding that the issues required a full hearing on the merits to resolve.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to amend the application on consent.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment after being unsuccessful in several job competitions.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed on a preliminary basis.

The Tribunal found that allegations prior to October 2012 had already been dealt with in previous proceedings and dismissed them under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The remaining allegations regarding October 2012 job competitions were dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success, as the applicant provided no evidence linking his lack of success to a prohibited ground or reprisal.

The Tribunal declined the respondent's request to declare the applicant a vexatious litigant.

The respondents requested an order to vary a Case Assessment Direction that required the parties to schedule three consecutive hearing dates.

The respondents argued that finding consecutive dates was difficult due to counsel's schedule and that the applicant had not demonstrated a necessity for consecutive dates.

The Tribunal agreed that consecutive dates were not strictly necessary and varied the direction to allow the parties to schedule three non-consecutive hearing dates between October and November 2013.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because his counsel was required to appear in Superior Court.

The respondents did not consent.

The Tribunal found that the scheduling conflict constituted an exceptional circumstance justifying an adjournment under its Practice Direction.

The request was granted and the parties were directed to propose new hearing dates.

The applicant, represented by his mother as next friend, alleged discrimination by the respondent school board on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, and ethnic origin.

The respondent argued the mother lacked authority to proceed because the applicant was in the care of the Children's Aid Society.

The Tribunal found the mother had authority to proceed but dismissed the application following a summary hearing, concluding there was no reasonable prospect of success as the applicant provided no evidence linking the alleged incidents to a protected Code ground.

The respondent school board requested an order to defer the human rights application pending the completion of a concurrent union grievance proceeding.

The Tribunal found that the grievance addressed the same issues raised in the application.

Following the principle that grievance arbitrators have the authority to decide human rights issues, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process.

The applicant, a shift leader in the respondent's caretaking ranks, filed two applications alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, and reprisal after being denied several job opportunities.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether the applications had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant abandoned several allegations and focused on a Maintenance Team Leader position for which he was not interviewed.

The Tribunal found no evidence linking the respondent's selection process or criteria to a prohibited ground of discrimination, nor any evidence of reprisal.

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

The applicant alleged that the respondent breached an oral settlement agreement reached during mediation.

The Tribunal dismissed the applications relating to the breach of settlement, finding it lacked jurisdiction under section 45.9(1) of the Human Rights Code because there was no written and signed agreement.

Regarding a third application filed on behalf of a minor, the Tribunal directed the parties to file further materials to determine whether the applicant retained authority to act as a next friend given the minor was in the care of the Children's Aid Society.

The applicant, a teacher, alleged systemic age discrimination in the school board's promotion process for vice-principals, relying entirely on statistical evidence to show that older candidates were promoted at lower rates.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss.

The Tribunal rejected the applicant's statistical evidence due to methodological flaws and a failure to control for variables other than age, such as qualifications and experience.

The Tribunal accepted the respondent's expert evidence and concluded that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment after being denied promotions in 2005, 2007, and 2009.

The respondent requested early dismissal, arguing the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the three job competitions did not constitute a series of incidents and that the applicant's delay in filing regarding the 2005 and 2007 incidents was not incurred in good faith.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations relating to 2005 and 2007, but allowed the allegations relating to the 2009 incident to proceed as they were filed within the limitation period.