Kathleen Martin

The applicant requested leave to withdraw his human rights application against the respondent pursuant to Rule 10 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondent made no submissions.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw her human rights application pursuant to Rule 10 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondent made no submissions on the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw their human rights application against the respondent.

The respondent made no submissions on the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

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

She subsequently filed a Request to Expedite the Application, citing financial hardship due to the impending end of her short-term disability benefits and concerns about returning to a poisoned work environment.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that purely financial losses and the possibility of ongoing harassment upon return to work did not meet the high threshold for urgency required to expedite the proceeding.

The Tribunal also noted the applicant's delay in filing the application and the request.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

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, and granted the respondent seven days to file a Response along with an explanation for the delay.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal in his employment at a radio station.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that the respondent appeared to be a federally regulated business.

After receiving submissions from the applicant, the Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the matter fell under federal jurisdiction and directed that the application be served on the respondents.

The applicant's request to expedite the proceedings was dismissed as the circumstances did not meet the high threshold for urgency.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal regarding her employment termination.

The respondent requested early dismissal, arguing the matter was resolved through a union grievance and minutes of settlement containing a full and final release.

The applicant claimed the settlement was signed under duress.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application immediately, noting that section 43(2) of the Code requires an opportunity for oral submissions before final disposal, and scheduled a preliminary hearing to address the effect of the settlement and the timeliness of the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, nearly 22 months after the last alleged incident.

The applicant argued that the delay was justified because she was relying on her union to address the issue through the grievance process.

The Tribunal found that waiting for other legal proceedings to conclude does not generally constitute a valid explanation for delay.

The Tribunal held that the applicant failed to establish that the delay was incurred in good faith and dismissed the application as being outside its jurisdiction under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding requested that her medical records, filed by the respondent hospital, be suppressed under section 35(9) of the Mental Health Act, and that her identity be anonymized.

The Tribunal found that section 35(11) of the Mental Health Act applied, which permits disclosure in proceedings commenced by a patient relating to their assessment or treatment.

The Tribunal directed the return of the records to the respondent for now, establishing a process for the applicant to object to specific documents once the respondent files its intended reliance documents.

The interim anonymization order was continued pending further resolution of the medical records issue.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment more than a year after the last alleged incident.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine if the delay was incurred in good faith under section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued the delay was caused by his former counsel failing to file the complaint and withholding documents.

The Tribunal found the applicant did not act with due diligence in obtaining the documents or pursuing the claim after his retainer ended in 2006.

The application was dismissed as the delay was not incurred in good faith.

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 warning the respondent of the consequences of failing to participate under Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The Tribunal granted the respondent a final 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 an application under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued an Interim Decision directing the applicant to file submissions explaining how the application raised matters within the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

After the applicant failed to file submissions, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction warning that the application would be deemed abandoned if she did not comply.

The applicant subsequently filed a letter stating her intention to continue but failed to provide the required submissions or properly serve the respondents.

The Tribunal found the application abandoned and dismissed it.

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

The respondents sought to dismiss the application for delay, arguing it was filed two months late because the initial filing was incomplete.

The Tribunal found the delay was only three days, as the application was processed as complete on the date originally filed.

The Tribunal deferred the issue of whether the three-day delay was incurred in good faith, directing the parties to mediation first.

The Tribunal also dismissed the respondents' request to dismiss the application under section 45.1 or as an abuse of process, finding that unpursued union grievances did not constitute another proceeding that had appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and record of offences after being laid off following a heart attack.

She requested to expedite the application, citing fears that the stress and loss of benefits could cause another heart attack or stroke.

The respondents consented to the request.

The Tribunal denied the request to expedite, finding that the applicant framed her health concerns as a possibility and failed to provide medical information demonstrating truly urgent circumstances that would warrant priority over other applications.

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

A hearing was scheduled, but the applicant failed to attend and did not provide any explanation or request an adjournment.

The applicant had also failed to comply with previous Tribunal directions.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant, a former student, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by her former teacher and school board.

Before filing a Response, the respondents brought a Request for Order seeking to compel the applicant to provide written permission to access and disclose her Ontario Student Record (OSR), arguing it was necessary to defend against the allegations.

The Tribunal dismissed the request as premature, noting that the parties' obligations to disclose arguably relevant documents had not yet been triggered.

The respondents were ordered to file their Response, with leave to amend later if further disclosure made it necessary.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and subsequently filed a Request to Expedite the Application, citing worsening mental health and suicidal thoughts.

The Tribunal reviewed the request under Rules 21.1 and 21.2 of its Rules of Procedure.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had already been relocated as requested and failed to explain how a rapid hearing would alleviate her symptoms.

The request to expedite was denied as it did not meet the high threshold for urgency.

In an ongoing human rights hearing regarding alleged discrimination by a post-secondary institution, the Tribunal addressed three preliminary issues.

First, the Tribunal granted the complainant's request to anonymize his identity due to the highly sensitive mental health information involved.

Second, the Tribunal denied the complainant's request to call five additional witnesses, finding no legitimate excuse for the late disclosure and concluding the proposed evidence lacked relevance.

Finally, addressing the respondents' request for a contempt order due to the complainant's counsel's repeated lateness, the Tribunal noted it lacked jurisdiction to find contempt but exercised its power to control its process by issuing explicit directions requiring counsel to arrive on time and conduct himself respectfully.

The respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking to dismiss the human rights application on the basis that it is a federally regulated inter-provincial telecommunications enterprise.

The applicant did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal found that the respondent falls under federal jurisdiction and is subject to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, not the provincial Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

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

A mediation was scheduled, but the applicant failed to attend.

Tribunal staff attempted to contact the applicant by telephone and via a Registrar's letter, directing the applicant to advise of his intentions regarding the application.

The applicant failed to respond.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.