Kathleen Martin

The respondent employer requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found it had discriminated against the complainant on the basis of disability by terminating his employment after he reported an injury and requested accommodation.

The respondent argued the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence and lacked adequate reasons.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding no conflict with the law, that adequate reasons were provided, and that the respondent was improperly attempting to reargue its case and repair deficiencies in its presentation.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to amend her human rights application to include the additional grounds of family status and marital status, and to increase the requested monetary compensation to $15,000.

The respondent did not file a response to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting the early stage of the proceeding, the nature of the amendment, and the absence of prejudice or objection from the respondent.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on all grounds, citing incidents such as a suspended licence and not receiving pay as a monarch.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application did not explain how the conduct constituted discrimination, appeared out of time, and involved events outside Ontario.

After reviewing the applicant's further submissions, the Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction as the allegations did not engage the Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed two human rights applications alleging discrimination in employment against the Ontario Ombudsman and discrimination in vocational association against her union.

The Tribunal considered whether the applications should be heard together.

Applying the factors for consolidation, the Tribunal found that the applications arose out of a common factual background regarding the applicant's employment and termination.

To avoid multiple proceedings, repetition of evidence, and the risk of inconsistent results, the Tribunal ordered the applications to be heard together.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code and requested that it be deferred pending the completion of a related union grievance proceeding.

The organizational respondent and the applicant's union agreed to the deferral, noting the grievance addressed substantially the same subject matter.

The Tribunal granted the request and deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance proceeding.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination and reprisal by his employer.

The respondent requested dismissal of the job competition allegations on the basis of delay, as they were filed more than a year after the incidents.

The Tribunal found that the job competition allegations and the reprisal allegations did not constitute a series of incidents.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, and thus the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The job competition allegations were dismissed, while the union's request to intervene was granted.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code and requested that it be deferred pending the completion of a related union grievance proceeding involving four grievances.

The organization respondent agreed to the deferral, and the other respondents and the union did not provide submissions.

The Tribunal granted the request and deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance proceeding.

The applicant filed a request for reconsideration of an interim decision that found the respondent was not prohibited from disclosing certain medical records under the Mental Health Act.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that under Rule 26.1, reconsideration is only available for final decisions that dispose of central issues.

The previous decision was interim, and the applicant merely reiterated previous submissions.

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

The respondent failed to file a Response within the required 35-day period.

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

The respondent was given a final deadline 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 alleging discrimination on the basis of race and disability by his employer, TCHC, and his union.

The respondents raised preliminary objections regarding delay, as many of the allegations occurred more than one year before the application was filed.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay and did not establish that the delay was incurred in good faith.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed all allegations against TCHC and the individual employer respondent, as well as the pre-December 2007 allegations against the union.

The application was permitted to continue against the union regarding the remaining timely allegations.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in services on the basis of creed.

The allegations arose from comments allegedly made by the respondent during an investigation by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario and a subsequent proceeding before the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board.

The Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction to hear the application because the alleged treatment did not arise in connection with the provision of a service by the respondent.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination and reprisal in employment.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal granted the applicant's request to withdraw the application against the union.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant's request for particulars and document production as premature, noting that the application was at an early stage, the requested documents related to allegations that might be found untimely at an upcoming preliminary hearing, and the parties had not yet complied with standard disclosure obligations.

The applicant filed two human rights applications: one against her former employer alleging discrimination in employment, and another against her union alleging discrimination in vocational association.

The union requested to intervene in the application against the employer to address issues regarding its conduct and remedy.

The applicant opposed the intervention.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene, noting that a union typically has an interest in an application brought by an employee in its bargaining unit alleging discrimination in employment.

The Tribunal also requested submissions from the parties on whether the two applications should be heard together.

The applicant filed a human rights application against an organizational respondent and two individual respondents.

None of the respondents filed a Response.

The applicant advised that the organizational respondent was in receivership but still operating, and that the individual respondents were no longer employed there.

The Tribunal ordered the organizational respondent to file a Response within 10 days or face consequences under Rule 5.5.

The Tribunal found the individual respondents were not properly served and ordered the applicant to provide their current addresses or seek an order requiring the organizational respondent to produce them.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The respondent failed to file a response within the required 35-day period.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondent 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.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and failure to accommodate.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because there was an ongoing union grievance dealing with the same subject matter.

Both the applicant and the union agreed to the deferral.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance proceeding pursuant to section 45 of the Human Rights Code and Rule 14.1 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant requested that her deferred human rights application proceed due to delays in the grievance arbitration process regarding her termination.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the grievance process had not yet concluded, and maintained its earlier decision to defer the application pending the conclusion of the grievances.

The applicant filed three human rights applications alleging discrimination in services on the basis of creed against a doctor, the doctor's legal counsel and their law firm, and the Law Society of Upper Canada.

The allegations arose from comments made about the applicant's religious beliefs during a College of Physicians and Surgeons investigation and subsequent review board proceeding, and the Law Society's subsequent refusal to investigate the applicant's complaint against the lawyers.

The Tribunal dismissed the applications against the lawyers and the law firm, finding no service relationship exists between a lawyer and an opposing party.

The Tribunal also dismissed the application against the Law Society, finding no connection between its refusal to investigate and discrimination based on creed.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide further submissions regarding how the allegations against the doctor fall within the social areas of the Code.

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

She brought a Request to Expedite the application, alleging that her employer threatened to pull out of Canada and citing a hostile work environment.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant's assertions were speculative and lacked sufficient detail to demonstrate truly urgent circumstances that would prevent a fair and just resolution if the regular process were followed.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw her human rights application filed under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondents made no submissions on the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.