Kathleen Martin

The applicant, an employee of a lumber manufacturing facility for 27 years, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal after he was reassigned to a position in the boardway.

He claimed that working with green softwood aggravated a lung condition, and provided a doctor's note stating he should not return to his previous workplace in the mill.

The respondent was skeptical of the medical evidence and directed him to report to the boardway or stay home, ultimately laying him off at his request.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant had a disability, he failed to establish that the assignment to the boardway would adversely affect him, as his previous symptoms occurred in a different area and the medical evidence did not establish that green wood was the cause.

The Tribunal also dismissed the reprisal claim, finding no intent to reprise.

The application was dismissed.

Following a decision on the merits finding that the complainant was discriminated against by police officers during fingerprinting and by contacting his employer, the Tribunal issued a supplementary decision on liability.

The Tribunal found the Toronto Police Services Board vicariously liable for the discriminatory actions of the officers under section 46.3(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal declined to make any finding of liability against the individual officers named.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking documentary disclosure, including surveillance tapes and medical files, prior to the issuance of a Confirmation of Hearing.

The respondent argued the request was premature.

The Tribunal agreed, noting that disclosure obligations are triggered by the Confirmation of Hearing.

The request was denied as premature, with leave to file a new request after the standard disclosure process if necessary.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code against Rogers Communications Inc. The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the respondent appeared to be a federally regulated business, outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to provide written submissions in response to the Notice.

Consequently, the Tribunal found the application to be abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability, specifically regarding a failure to recall him from lay-off and a failure to accommodate his restrictions.

The respondents requested dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application was being dealt with in a grievance and WSIB proceedings.

The union requested to intervene.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene.

The Tribunal dismissed the respondents' request to dismiss under section 45.1, finding that the other proceedings had not yet concluded or dealt with the substance of the application.

However, the Tribunal directed the parties to provide submissions on whether the application should be deferred to the grievance process under section 45.

The applicant filed a human rights application against her former employer, which subsequently went into receivership, and two individual respondents.

The applicant sought to withdraw the application against the corporate respondent and proceed only against the individuals.

The individual respondents requested a deferral or stay of the proceedings, relying on the corporate receivership order and the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the parties to provide further written submissions on whether the withdrawal should be permitted and whether the stay of proceedings applies to the individual respondents.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

The respondent failed to file a Response by the deadline.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing 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 to the respondent.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application did not allege a ground or area of discrimination under the Code.

The applicant failed to respond to the initial Notice and a subsequent amended Notice.

Consequently, the Tribunal found the application to be abandoned and dismissed it.

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

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

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed as abandoned.

The Tribunal sent a letter asking 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.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed an Application under the Human Rights Code while having an ongoing civil action against the respondent arising out of the same facts and seeking a remedy for discrimination.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice despite multiple extensions of time.

The Tribunal dismissed the Application, finding it lacked jurisdiction under section 34(11) of the Code, which prohibits duplicate proceedings where a civil action seeking remedies for the same alleged infringement is ongoing.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondents.

After receiving notice of the personal respondent's bankruptcy, the Tribunal directed the parties to provide their positions on the status of the proceeding.

When the applicant failed to respond to multiple Tribunal communications, including a Case Assessment Direction warning of potential abandonment, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

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

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

The Tribunal sent a letter warning that failure to respond would result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant did not respond.

The Tribunal found the application abandoned and dismissed it.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer and sought submissions.

As the parties and the applicant's union confirmed there was no outstanding grievance relating to the issues in the application, the Tribunal directed that the application continue to be processed and ordered the respondent to file a Response.

The applicant filed a human rights application against organizational and personal respondents.

The personal respondent failed to file a Response.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the personal respondent to file a Response within 10 days, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without her participation.

The Tribunal also directed an affected person to file a Request to Intervene within 10 days if she wished to participate.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The respondents failed to file a Response despite receiving notice and a subsequent interim decision directing them to do so.

The Tribunal deemed the respondents to have accepted all allegations in the Application and waived all rights to further notice or participation.

The applicant was directed to advise if he wished to make oral submissions before final determination.

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

The respondent failed to file a Response by the 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.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application but advised at mediation that he did not wish to proceed.

He declined to complete a formal withdrawal form.

The Tribunal subsequently directed the applicant to confirm his intentions in writing, warning that failure to respond would result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond within the specified time period.

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

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in services based on disability and reprisal.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intention to Dismiss (NOID) because the initial application failed to identify specific acts of discrimination.

In response, the applicant provided written submissions detailing verbal ridicule by the respondent's staff regarding a facial disfigurement, as well as a subsequent refusal of service after he complained.

The Tribunal concluded it was not plain and obvious that the application fell outside its jurisdiction and directed that the application be processed and served on the respondent.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal when he was not returned from lay-off.

The applicant had also filed a union grievance based on the same facts.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer.

The respondent submitted that the application should be deferred as the grievance was proceeding under the collective agreement.

The applicant and his union did not file submissions.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance proceeding in accordance with its usual practice.

The applicant filed a human rights application.

The respondent requested dismissal without a full response, arguing the applicant had signed a full and final release.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to file submissions responding to the request to dismiss.

The applicant failed to file any submissions by the deadline.

The Tribunal found the applicant had abandoned the application and dismissed it.