Kathleen Martin

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss Application (NOID) because the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to provide written submissions in response to the NOID by the specified deadline.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) on the basis that the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction, directing the applicant to provide written submissions.

The applicant failed to respond to the NOID within the specified time.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction, directing the applicant to provide written submissions.

The applicant failed to respond to the NOID by the deadline.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

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

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to reply to the respondents' arguments that the application was premature and to explain why the alleged changes constituted discrimination.

The applicant failed to make the directed submissions within the specified timeframe.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondents.

The respondent hospital mistakenly named the Ontario Nurses' Association (ONA) as a respondent in its response.

ONA filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking to be removed as a party.

As the other respondents and the applicant consented, the Tribunal ordered ONA removed as a party and provided directions for next steps.

The adjudicator issued an interim decision providing reasons for two oral rulings made during the hearing.

First, the adjudicator denied the complainant's request for recusal, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias based on the adjudicator's conduct of the hearing.

Second, the adjudicator ruled that the complainant's counsel was no longer permitted to appear as a representative in the proceeding.

The adjudicator found that counsel's chronic lateness, repeated refusal to follow directions, and disrespectful conduct constituted an abuse of process that undermined the administration of justice.

The applicant filed a human rights application.

The respondent failed to file a Response despite being served with a Notice of Application twice.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision giving the respondent a final 10 days to file a Response and explain the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice to the respondent.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code against the Workplace Safety Insurance Appeals Tribunal.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, directing the applicant to provide submissions.

The applicant failed to respond within the required time.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment on the basis of disability, following a workplace injury and subsequent return to work on modified duties.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the conclusion of ongoing proceedings at the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB).

The Tribunal found that while there was an overlap of factual issues, the WSIB proceedings would not address the same legal issues or Code remedies.

Furthermore, the WSIB appeals were not actively proceeding.

The Tribunal denied the request to defer to ensure a fair, just, and expeditious resolution.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The respondent failed to file a response by the required deadline.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent of the consequences of failing to respond under Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to file a response within 10 days, along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application for abandonment after he failed to attend a scheduled mediation.

The adjudicator found that the applicant had in fact communicated with the Tribunal regarding his absence, but his email was inadvertently omitted from the file.

Additionally, the applicant did not receive a subsequent letter from the Tribunal.

Given these circumstances, the adjudicator reconsidered the previous decision, set aside the dismissal, and directed that the application continue to be processed.

The applicant, an anatomical acupuncturist, filed a human rights application alleging that the respondent discriminated against her on the basis of ancestry and place of origin by proposing a draft registration regulation that would exclude anatomical acupuncturists from the new College of Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners and Acupuncturists of Ontario.

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

The Tribunal found that the application was premature as the regulation was only in draft form and had not yet prevented the applicant from applying.

Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that there was no reasonable prospect of establishing a breach of section 13 of the Human Rights Code, as the draft materials and presentations did not demonstrate an intention to discriminate.

The application was dismissed.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, directing the applicant to provide submissions.

The applicant failed to respond within the required time.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

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

The respondent failed to file a response by the required deadline.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent that failure to file a response by a specified final deadline could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming the respondent to have accepted the allegations.

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

After consenting to mediation, the applicant failed to attend the scheduled mediation session and did not contact the Tribunal to seek an adjournment.

The Tribunal sent correspondence directing the applicant to advise of her intentions, warning that failure to respond would result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant did not respond.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, which was deferred pending the conclusion of ongoing grievance proceedings.

The Tribunal subsequently requested a status update from the applicant, warning that failure to respond within 30 days could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's inquiry.

As a result, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The respondent failed to file a Response by the required deadline.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent of the consequences of failing to participate under Rule 5.5 of the Rules of Procedure, and granted the respondent a final extension to March 25, 2011, to file a Response and explain the delay.

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

The respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking to dismiss the application for delay and failure to establish a prima facie case.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to respond, warning that failure to do so could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond.

The Tribunal found the application abandoned and dismissed it.

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

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation session and did not communicate with the Tribunal to explain the absence.

The Tribunal subsequently wrote to the applicant warning that failure to respond would be deemed an abandonment of the application.

The applicant did not respond.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment and services on the basis of disability and age, as well as reprisal.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss regarding certain individual respondents and the reprisal allegation.

After receiving written submissions from the applicant, the Tribunal removed several individual respondents against whom no specific allegations were made.

The Tribunal allowed the application to continue against the remaining respondents and on the basis of reprisal, finding it was not plain and obvious that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction.