Kathleen Martin

The respondent requested an order dismissing the human rights application as abandoned or for abuse of process, arguing that the applicant failed to comply with the Tribunal's directions to produce documents and an IME report.

The applicant, who was self-represented, claimed she did not have the documents as they were with the WSIB and cited health issues.

The Tribunal denied the respondent's request, finding that the applicant's conduct did not meet the high threshold for abuse of process and that she had not abandoned the application.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant's failure to disclose evidence could be addressed by limiting the evidence she is permitted to rely on at the hearing.

The applicant, a registered practical nurse, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and age against the administrators of the nursing home where she worked.

Following a workplace injury, the applicant required ergonomic accommodations, including an adjustable chair and tilt board, which the respondents failed to provide despite recommendations from a WSIB ergonomist.

The applicant was also subjected to a discriminatory age-related comment by one of the respondents.

The Tribunal found that the respondent administrator, Celia McDougall, was personally liable for the failure to accommodate and the discriminatory comment.

The Tribunal ordered Ms. McDougall to pay $5,333.50 for lost wages and $13,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The applicant requested an indefinite adjournment of her human rights applications due to an ongoing medical issue with her throat.

The Tribunal had previously accommodated the applicant by scheduling shorter, in-person hearing days at a location near her home.

The applicant failed to provide sufficient medical documentation to clarify her restrictions or justify an indefinite adjournment, and declined to participate in a conference call with her doctor and the Tribunal.

The Tribunal denied the request for an indefinite adjournment and ordered the applicant to confirm her intention to participate in the scheduled in-person hearing, failing which the applications may be dismissed as abandoned.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be dismissed as abandoned after the self-represented applicant failed to attend a scheduled hearing and comply with pre-hearing disclosure directions.

The applicant requested that the application be deferred pending her WSIB claims.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss, finding that while the applicant's conduct was concerning, she appeared genuinely confused about the process rather than intentionally flouting the rules.

The Tribunal also denied the request to defer, as there was no active WSIB proceeding to defer to, and issued peremptory directions for the applicant to comply with disclosure obligations.

The respondents requested the dismissal of a human rights application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that an employment standards officer (ESO) had already dealt with the substance of the applicant's allegations regarding pregnancy and family status discrimination.

The applicant conceded that issues relating to her termination and return to work were addressed by the ESO, but argued that allegations concerning a change in duties before her leave, accommodation for expressing breast milk, and family status accommodation were not.

The Tribunal found that the ESO decision did not explicitly address or determine these specific allegations, and therefore declined to dismiss those parts of the application.

The applicant filed an application alleging that the respondents contravened Minutes of Settlement by failing to pay $10,000 and fulfill other non-monetary obligations.

The central issue was whether the term 'the respondents' in the settlement agreement applied to all three named respondents, including a former manager who was no longer employed by the corporate respondent.

The Tribunal found the term latently ambiguous and admitted extrinsic evidence of the negotiating history.

The Tribunal concluded that the corporate respondent and its president were jointly and severally liable for the settlement obligations, but the former manager was not.

The Tribunal ordered the corporate respondent and its president to pay the $10,000 with pre- and post-judgment interest, but declined to award additional compensation for the breach.

The applicant failed to comply with the Tribunal's Case Assessment Direction requiring pre-hearing disclosure of documents and witnesses.

The Tribunal had warned that failure to comply could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

After the deadline passed without any communication or compliance from the applicant, the respondents requested dismissal.

The Tribunal found the application to be abandoned and dismissed it, cancelling the scheduled hearing dates.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application due to a 19-month delay in filing.

The applicant argued that the Tribunal erred in law by not applying the Supreme Court's decision in Blencoe and failed to give sufficient weight to his claim of officially induced error based on a government website.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant was attempting to re-argue his case and that Blencoe, which addresses administrative delay, was not applicable to the statutory criteria for filing delays under the Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination and harassment in her employment, which culminated in her termination.

Following the filing of the application, the parties engaged in a mediated settlement process during a labour arbitration regarding her termination grievance.

The parties signed Minutes of Settlement that explicitly resolved all claims the applicant had or could have under the Human Rights Code.

The respondent sought early dismissal of the application.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was not under duress when signing the settlement and that permitting the application to continue would be an abuse of process.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant alleged discrimination with respect to housing on the basis of family status and receipt of public assistance, as well as reprisal, claiming she faced excessive scrutiny regarding her rent subsidy after making a complaint.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant abandoned the hearing partway through.

The Tribunal found no reasonable prospect that the applicant could establish discrimination or reprisal, as the prior complaint was not Code-related and there was no evidence linking the respondent's actions to a prohibited ground.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a police officer alleging racial discrimination and reprisal in a promotion process, brought a preliminary motion for the production of documents and particulars.

The applicant sought extensive statistical and personnel records based on assertions made by the respondent in its Response.

The Tribunal ordered the hearing bifurcated between liability and remedy on consent.

The Tribunal granted the production of certain documents, including the resume of a comparator officer, policies on the promotion of racialized officers, and redacted endorsements of other candidates.

However, the Tribunal denied most of the requests for broad statistical data and personnel files of other officers, finding them not arguably relevant to the core issues of the specific promotion decision and alleged reprisals at this early stage of the proceeding.

The applicant, a kitchen supervisor and delivery driver at a pizza franchise, alleged she was terminated because of her pregnancy.

After confirming a rumour of her pregnancy to her manager, she was immediately fired.

The respondent claimed she was terminated for performance issues, including giving away shifts and creating negativity in the workplace.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence credible and rejected the respondent's performance-based explanations as unsupported and inconsistent.

The Tribunal concluded that pregnancy was a factor in the termination, establishing a violation of the Human Rights Code.

The corporate respondent was held liable for the manager's discriminatory actions.

The Tribunal awarded the applicant $20,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, $381.03 for lost wages, and ordered the manager to complete human rights training.

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

The applicant subsequently expressed a wish to withdraw the application.

The respondent made no submissions in response to the Tribunal's Case Assessment Direction.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant requested to defer his human rights application until other proceedings regarding his Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) benefits were resolved, citing financial hardship, health issues, and the pressure of being self-represented.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding no overlap in subject matter between the proceedings and insufficient evidence that financial constraints or health issues justified holding the application in abeyance.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging she was terminated because of her pregnancy.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance of the application was already dealt with by an employment standards officer who dismissed the applicant's reprisal claim.

The Tribunal noted the applicant had sought a review of the employment standards officer's decision at the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Tribunal held it was premature to consider dismissing the application under s. 45.1 while the other proceeding was still ongoing, and ordered the application deferred pending the conclusion of the employment standards proceeding.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal directed the parties to exchange and file documents and witness lists in advance of the hearing.

The applicant failed to comply with these directions, despite multiple warnings and extensions of time.

As the applicant did not communicate with the Tribunal or file the required materials, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

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

A summary hearing was scheduled, and notice was provided to all parties.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing and did not communicate with the Tribunal to explain her absence.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application for lack of jurisdiction on the basis that the corporate respondent was a federally-regulated bank.

Following the dismissal, the Canadian Human Rights Commission declined to deal with her analogous complaint, finding the respondent was not a federally-regulated bank.

The respondents did not oppose the reconsideration request and abandoned their jurisdictional objection.

The Tribunal granted the request for reconsideration, set aside its previous decision, and found the application to be within its jurisdiction, allowing the matter to proceed on the merits.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in services on the basis of disability and reprisal against the respondent school board.

Following mediation/adjudication, the parties entered into Minutes of Settlement and jointly requested a consent order.

The Tribunal issued the consent order under section 45.9(2) of the Human Rights Code, directing the respondent to pay $12,000 in general damages, provide tutoring support, facilitate mediation for future conflicts, amend communication guidelines, and provide human rights training to staff.

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

A summary hearing was scheduled, and notice was provided to the parties.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing and did not communicate with the Tribunal to explain the absence.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.