Kathleen Martin

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of family status and disability, including inappropriate comments, failure to accommodate her asthma, and termination while on sick leave.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence to support the allegations of discrimination during her active employment or regarding a discriminatory reference.

However, the Tribunal found that the respondent discriminated against the applicant on the basis of disability when it terminated her employment for failing to provide medical documentation, as the respondent's agent (Sun Life) had received sufficient medical information to support a further absence.

The applicant was awarded $10,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The Tribunal previously dismissed the application for abandonment, believing the applicant had failed to respond to a letter inquiring about her intentions.

It was subsequently discovered that the applicant had in fact responded by email, but the correspondence was inadvertently omitted from the file.

The Tribunal reconsidered its prior decision, set aside the dismissal, and ordered that the application continue to be processed.

The applicant filed a human rights application against three respondents.

Two respondents filed their Responses on time, but Voyageur Transportation Services failed to do so.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning Voyageur Transportation Services of the consequences of failing to respond under Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, and granted it 10 days to file a Response with an explanation for the delay.

The applicant filed a human rights application but failed to attend two scheduled mediations, citing illness and transportation difficulties.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed or deemed abandoned.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to confirm her intention to proceed in writing, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal for abandonment.

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

The Tribunal found 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 session and did not respond to subsequent correspondence from the Tribunal inquiring about his intentions.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

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

One respondent, PSCC No. 766, failed to file a response within the required timeframe.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the non-responding party 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 filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment, including improper layoff and failure to investigate a harassment complaint.

The applicant had also filed three related grievances through her union which were referred to arbitration.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application.

The respondents and the union supported deferral.

Finding substantial overlap between the grievances and the application, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process.

The applicant in a human rights complaint requested that the adjudicator recuse herself, alleging procedural unfairness and a reasonable apprehension of bias arising from a conference call.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding that her conduct in seeking clarification on issues and managing disclosure did not raise a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The adjudicator also granted the applicant's request to add a physician as a respondent, noting the hospital's position that it was not responsible for the physician's independent medical decisions, and issued procedural directions for the continuation of the hearing.

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

The Tribunal attempted to schedule mediation, but the applicant failed to provide available dates.

After the applicant failed to respond to a letter warning that the file would be closed, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

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

One respondent, Manulife Financial, failed to file a Response by the deadline.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing Manulife to file a Response within 10 days, along with an explanation for the delay, warning that failure to do so could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming the respondent to have accepted the allegations pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The respondent subsequently filed for bankruptcy, resulting in the proceedings being stayed under section 69 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to advise if he intended to take steps to lift the stay.

After the applicant failed to communicate with the Tribunal by the specified deadline, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

The respondents requested that the human rights application be dismissed or deferred because the applicant had commenced a concurrent proceeding before the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) dealing with similar facts and issues.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code because the OLRB proceeding had not yet concluded.

However, the Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application under s. 45 of the Code to avoid duplication of evidence and inconsistent findings, noting that the OLRB proceeding was moving forward more quickly.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the applicant's human rights application alleging sex and pregnancy discrimination pending the conclusion of a claim under the Employment Standards Act.

The Tribunal found that the ESA claim had already been dismissed and no appeal had been commenced.

As there was no longer an ongoing proceeding to which the Tribunal could defer, the request for deferral was refused and the matter was directed to mediation.

The applicant filed an Application alleging a contravention of settlement under section 45.9 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondents failed to file a Response within the required 14-day period.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondents to file a Response within 10 days, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice and deem the respondents to have accepted the allegations.

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 directing the respondents to file a response within 10 days, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice to them and deem them to have accepted the allegations.

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

The respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the outcome of a related proceeding at the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) regarding the union's duty of fair representation.

The union requested intervenor status.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene and denied the respondent's request to defer, finding that the legal issues and remedies sought in the two proceedings were different.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment against the respondent transit authority.

The respondent brought a request for an order during the proceeding to dismiss the application, arguing it is a federal undertaking under s. 92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act.

The applicant did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal found that the respondent is a federally regulated undertaking, as previously established by the Ontario Court of Appeal, and therefore falls outside provincial jurisdiction.

The application was dismissed.

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

A conference call hearing was scheduled to determine whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the application.

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

The Tribunal received submissions from the respondents and dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application more than one year after the last alleged incident of discrimination.

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

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice or otherwise communicate with the Tribunal.

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

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code but failed to attend the scheduled mediation.

After the applicant contacted the Tribunal claiming a scheduling mix-up, the Tribunal directed her to advise of her intentions and take steps to reschedule, warning that failure to respond within ten days would result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant did not respond.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.