Kathleen Martin

The applicant filed an application under section 53(5) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to advise whether he wished to continue the application and to provide certain information within 30 days, failing which the application might be dismissed.

The applicant failed to respond within the specified time.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had abandoned the application 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 confirm his intentions to continue and to deliver relevant documents by a specified date.

The applicant failed to comply or communicate with the Tribunal.

The respondents requested dismissal.

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

The applicant filed a Form 10 requesting to amend his remedy in a human rights application alleging failure to accommodate and reprisal.

The respondents did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal granted the amendment, noted that related grievances were not proceeding to arbitration, and suspended disclosure deadlines pending mediation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal regarding an attendance management program that provided monetary incentives to correctional officers but not probation officers.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application did not allege discrimination on any ground protected by the Human Rights Code, nor did it allege reprisal for claiming or enforcing a Code right.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on an alcohol addiction after she resigned following a locker check that discovered alcohol.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the application because of an outstanding union grievance.

Since the grievance appeared to be in abeyance, the application named the union as a respondent, and no party requested deferral, the Tribunal declined to defer the application and directed it to proceed to mediation.

The applicant requested reconsideration of an interim decision that dismissed allegations against the respondents due to delay.

The applicant argued that the hearing procedure was unfair, that the Vice-chair improperly assessed evidence, and that the Vice-chair's conduct demonstrated bias.

The Tribunal found that the hearing procedure was consistent with its rules and mandate to adopt flexible procedures.

The Tribunal also held that the Vice-chair's questioning of the unrepresented applicant did not create a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The request for reconsideration and the request to remove the Vice-chair from further proceedings were denied.

The applicant, a migrant farm worker, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of marital status, race, colour, ethnic origin, place of origin, and ancestry, more than a year after his termination.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for delay.

The applicant submitted that the delay was due to threats of repatriation by the respondent and his social and political exclusion as a migrant worker.

The Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the delay was not incurred in good faith and directed that the application continue to be processed.

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 regarding jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond within the required 30-day period.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondents.

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

The Tribunal issued an interim decision noting the failure to respond and warning the respondents of the consequences under Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondents were granted a final 10-day extension to file their response and explain the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceeding to amend the Application to increase the general damages sought to $30,000.

The respondent consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request and amended the Application accordingly.

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 directing the respondent to file a Response within 10 days, warning that failure to do so 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.

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation session and subsequently failed to respond to a Tribunal letter requiring him to advise of his intentions regarding the application.

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

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

After the applicant's counsel withdrew representation, no parties attended the scheduled mediation.

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

The applicant failed to respond within the specified time.

The Tribunal found the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to consolidate two human rights applications arising from the applicants' employment and termination as building superintendents.

The applicants consented to the consolidation.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding a strong public interest in consolidating the applications, and directed the matters to mediation.

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 provide submissions within the required 30-day period.

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 because the Application failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination.

The applicant was required to provide written submissions within 30 days but failed to do so.

Consequently, the Tribunal found that the applicant abandoned her Application and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging failure to accommodate her disability, along with a request for an interim monetary remedy for expenses while awaiting the hearing.

The Tribunal denied the request for an interim remedy, finding that the applicant failed to file the required declarations under the Tribunal's Rules and did not establish that financial compensation was necessary to preserve the Tribunal's ability to order a just and effective remedy at the conclusion of the hearing.

The complainant, an African Canadian man, alleged that police discriminated against him on the basis of race, colour, and ethnic origin during an undercover drug operation, his subsequent arrest, and his detention.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence that race was a factor in the initial approach, the arrest, or the strip searches.

However, the Tribunal found that a police officer's comment about deportation during fingerprinting was discriminatory.

Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that the police's decision to contact the complainant's employer to verify his identification, which deviated from usual protocol, was influenced by his race, colour, or place of origin.

The hearing was bifurcated, with a subsequent phase to address remedies and the liability of the Toronto Police Services Board.

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

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because the allegations were the subject of an ongoing union grievance.

The Tribunal granted the request and deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance arbitration proceeding, consistent with its usual practice for concurrent proceedings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal in her former employment, including her termination.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant's termination was also the subject of an ongoing union grievance arbitration.

Despite the respondent noting that the factual issues in the application were broader than the grievance, the Tribunal found deferral appropriate to avoid concurrent proceedings addressing the same factual issues, particularly given the advanced stage of the arbitration.

The application was deferred until the conclusion of the grievance arbitration.