Judith Keene

The applicant filed a Request for Order to proceed with her human rights application, which had previously been deferred pending the conclusion of a grievance arbitration.

The applicant sought to proceed because the arbitration hearing was delayed until March 31, 2011.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting the arbitration was only three months away, but did so without prejudice to the applicant's right to reapply if there were further adjournments or other compelling reasons.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sex discrimination and harassment by the personal respondent, a police officer.

The personal respondent, who was also facing disciplinary charges under the Police Services Act arising from the same events, requested a further extension of time to file a complete Response until after his disciplinary hearing concluded, citing prejudice.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding it amounted to an effective deferral of the application, which had already been denied.

The Tribunal rescinded the previous order requiring a fuller Response and directed the matter to mediation.

In an interim decision, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario addressed three procedural requests in an application alleging sex discrimination, sexual harassment, and reprisal.

The respondents requested the dismissal of allegations predating September 15, 2008, as untimely.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the allegations constituted a 'series of incidents' under section 34(1)(b) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to amend her application and dismissed the personal respondent's request for the production of medical records as premature, noting that disclosure obligations arise only once a hearing is scheduled.

The respondents brought a Request for Order during Proceedings seeking to dismiss the human rights application on the basis that the applicant had signed a release upon termination of his employment.

The respondents argued that allowing the application to proceed would be an abuse of process.

The Tribunal found that at the time the applicant signed the release, he was homeless, living on the street, and affected by a mental disability.

He did not read or understand the release, believing he had to sign it to receive his severance pay.

Balancing the principle of finality with fairness, the Tribunal concluded that enforcing the release would not protect the integrity of the justice system.

The respondents' request was dismissed and the application was allowed to continue.

The respondents requested to reschedule a hearing regarding an alleged breach of settlement, citing business commitments.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario denied the request because it was not made within five days of receiving the Confirmation of Hearing Notice, and the respondents failed to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances to warrant an adjournment.

The respondents filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to remove the personal respondents from the human rights application.

The applicant consented to the removal of two personal respondents but opposed the removal of a third, who allegedly harassed her and sent a note to the WSIB characterizing her claim as a 'scam'.

The Tribunal removed the two consented respondents but declined to remove the third at this stage, noting ambiguity in the corporate respondent's position on vicarious liability for her actions, leaving the issue for the hearing adjudicator.

The Toronto Police Association, recently added as a respondent in respect of a reprisal allegation, requested particulars, early disclosure of documents, and an extension of time to file its Response.

The Tribunal found the reprisal allegations insufficiently detailed and ordered the applicant to provide particulars.

The request for early document disclosure was denied as premature.

The Association was granted an extension of time to file its Response.

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

After the applicant's counsel reported being unable to locate or communicate with his client, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to comply with a previous disclosure order or respond to the respondent's request for dismissal.

When the applicant's counsel confirmed continued inability to contact the applicant, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sexual harassment by an employee of a service station.

The corporate respondent previously provided the contact information for the personal respondent pursuant to a Tribunal order.

The personal respondent failed to file a Response within the required 35 days.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the personal respondent of the consequences of failing to respond under Rule 5.5 and granting a final extension to December 6, 2010 to file a Response.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal scheduled a mediation, which the applicant failed to attend without explanation.

After the applicant failed to respond to a subsequent Tribunal letter inquiring about her intentions, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

A mediation was scheduled, but the applicant failed to attend and did not contact the Tribunal.

The Tribunal subsequently wrote to the applicant advising that the application would be dismissed as abandoned if she did not respond within ten days.

The applicant did not respond.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the Toronto Police Services Board and a personal respondent.

The personal respondent filed a response after seeking an extension, but the organisational respondent failed to file a response.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the organisational respondent of the consequences of failing to respond under Rule 5.5 and granted an extension to December 6, 2010, to file a response.

The applicant filed an application claiming reprisal in employment but failed to identify a personal characteristic relevant to the grounds of discrimination in the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

The applicant's response failed to address the jurisdictional issue.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as it did not raise matters within its jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment and services.

The Ministry of Transportation, originally named as a respondent, raised a timeliness issue regarding the allegations against it, which stemmed from a license suspension over a year prior to the application.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide written submissions on the delay.

When no submissions were received, the Tribunal dismissed the application against the Ministry pursuant to section 34 of the Human Rights Code, finding the application was filed out of time without a showing of good faith delay.

The applicant requested reconsideration of an interim decision that removed several individuals as personal respondents from her human rights application.

The applicant, who was self-represented, argued that the individuals were members of the church's Consistory and responsible for the impugned decisions.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's new information was known to her earlier and that she had simply omitted to provide it.

Finding no other factors that outweighed the public interest in the finality of decisions, the Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment based on disability.

The respondent and the applicant's union requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the outcome of an ongoing WSIB internal appeal and a related grievance process.

The Tribunal found that the WSIB appeal involved overlapping factual issues regarding accommodation, making deferral appropriate.

The Tribunal deferred the application until the WSIB Appeals Officer issues a decision, but declined to defer to the grievance process due to its uncertain status.

The applicant filed a human rights application 18 years after his layoff, alleging discrimination on the basis of race, colour, citizenship, and disability.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss due to the delay.

The applicant argued the delay was in good faith because he only recently discovered a report and learned that a junior employee of a different race was rehired.

The Tribunal dismissed the disability claim, finding the applicant had reason to inquire about his rights earlier when he filed a WSIB complaint.

However, the Tribunal allowed the race, colour, and citizenship claims to proceed, finding it was not plain and obvious that the delay for those grounds was not incurred in good faith.

The applicant, a police officer, filed a human rights application alleging sexual harassment and reprisal by her supervisor and the police service.

The personal respondent requested dismissal for delay, arguing the alleged incidents occurred more than a year prior, and alternatively sought deferral pending a Police Services Act disciplinary hearing.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss, finding the applicant alleged a continuing series of reprisal incidents.

The Tribunal also denied the request to defer, noting the disciplinary hearing would not address all allegations or Code issues, but briefly held the application in abeyance to allow the personal respondent to prepare for his disciplinary hearing.

The police association was granted intervenor status.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing despite receiving proper notice.

The respondent attended and requested that the application be dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the application due to the applicant's failure to appear and provide evidence in support of her allegations.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability after his driver's license was suspended following a hospital admission.

The application was filed 18 months after the incident, six months past the one-year limitation period under the Human Rights Code.

The respondent hospital requested the application be dismissed for delay.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had reason to make inquiries about his rights but failed to do so, and therefore the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The application against the hospital was dismissed.