John Taite and his Ottawa condominium corporation were back before the Human Rights Tribunal recently.

Mr. Taite’s initial Application before the Tribunal was dismissed last February. At the time, he was alleging that the responding condominium corporation violated the Human Rights Code by failing to accommodate his disability, which required him to drive a modified truck. At the time, he was requesting to be able to park his over-sized truck in an above-ground parking reasonably close to the entrance, as his truck was too big to fit in the underground parking.

The Human Rights Tribunal dismissed the Application on the basis that the accommodation sought by Mr. Taite was not based on a disability but rather on his choice of vehicle. He had failed to demonstrate that his disability required that he drive this specific vehicle, when other smaller vehicles would have also been adequate.

More recently, Mr. Taite was seeking the enforcement of a settlement which he alleged had been reached by the parties at the outset of the initial Application. Indeed, section 45.9 of the Human rights Code allows the Tribunal to grant an order it considers appropriate when a party breaches a settlement reached by the parties. Unfortunately for Mr. Taite, the Tribunal’s jurisdiction requires that the settlement be in writing and that it be signed by the parties – which was not the case here. The Tribunal dismissed this second application.