Kathleen Martin

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

The respondent requested early dismissal on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release.

After the applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's communications and a previous interim decision directing him to file submissions, the Tribunal issued this interim decision directing the applicant to advise of his intentions within 10 days, failing which the application would be deemed abandoned and dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of age and reprisal against the City of Mississauga, several personal respondents, and his union.

The respondents raised preliminary issues, including that portions of the application were filed beyond the one-year time limit, that the personal respondents should be removed, and that the application did not disclose a prima facie case against the union.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision scheduling a half-day hearing to address these preliminary issues.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing on the basis of family status, claiming his membership in the respondent co-operative was denied due to assumptions about child or spousal support obligations.

The applicant requested to expedite the application, citing emotional harm and delay in moving closer to his employment.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the circumstances did not meet the high threshold of true urgency required to prioritize the matter over other cases.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex and reprisal, claiming she was not allowed to return to work following her maternity leave.

She requested to expedite the application due to financial strain, stress, and potential complications with her current pregnancy.

Although the respondents consented to the request, the Tribunal denied it, finding that financial strain and associated stress do not meet the high threshold of urgency required to expedite an application over other matters.

The applicant requested that his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of related grievances, be allowed to proceed.

He argued that the grievances were denied at Step 2 and it would be months before knowing if the union would proceed to arbitration.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding no indication that the grievances had concluded, and maintained the deferral.

The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination on the basis of record of offences after being disciplined for alleged misconduct.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application did not allege facts falling within the Code's definition of 'record of offences' (a pardoned federal conviction or a provincial offence).

The applicant failed to provide written submissions in response.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed human rights applications alleging discrimination on the basis of disability against a pension plan and three individual respondents regarding his requests to inspect pension records.

The respondents requested that the individual respondents be removed as parties.

Applying the factors from Persaud, the Tribunal granted the request, finding that the organizational respondent accepted vicarious liability for the individuals' actions, there was no compelling reason to continue against the individuals, and the applicant would suffer no prejudice.

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

The respondent requested early dismissal, arguing the applicant had signed a full and final release.

After the applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's initial letter, the Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the applicant to file submissions within 21 days explaining why the application should proceed despite the release and whether he wished to make oral submissions.

The complainant, a probationary labourer, lacerated his hand while off work and requested light duties.

The respondent terminated his employment immediately upon receiving the request, claiming performance and attendance issues.

The Tribunal found that the complainant had a disability under the Code and that the respondent failed in its procedural duty to accommodate by rushing to judgment without making inquiries.

The Tribunal awarded $5,000 for injury to dignity, $4,760 for lost wages, and ordered the respondent to implement a human rights policy and training.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, record of offences, and reprisal by his employer and union.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed or deferred because the allegations were untimely and were being addressed through the grievance process.

The Tribunal found that the allegations did not meet the definition of 'record of offences' under the Code and indicated it would dismiss that ground unless the applicant provided further submissions.

The Tribunal scheduled a preliminary hearing to address the respondents' requests to dismiss or defer the remaining allegations.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment and requested that the matter be expedited due to anticipated financial hardship.

The Tribunal denied the request to expedite, finding that financial harm does not constitute an urgent circumstance warranting priority, and noting the applicant's unexplained six-month delay in filing.

The Tribunal also directed the parties to provide written submissions on whether the application should be deferred pending the resolution of an ongoing union grievance.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment and requested that the Tribunal expedite the matter, citing the prevention of a promotion and psychological harm.

The Tribunal reviewed the request under Rules 21.1 and 21.2 of its Rules of Procedure and found that the applicant failed to meet the high threshold for urgency.

The request to expedite was denied, and the regular time requirements remained in effect.

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

The respondent made no submissions on the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw the human rights application against certain respondents, including the Waterloo District Catholic School Board and several individuals.

The remaining respondent, the Ministry of Education, had not filed a response.

The Tribunal granted leave to withdraw the application against the specified respondents and amended the style of cause accordingly.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sexual harassment and reprisal terminations.

The respondents and the applicant's union requested that the application be deferred pending the resolution of two outstanding union grievances related to the applicant's terminations.

The Tribunal found that there was considerable factual overlap between the grievances and the application, and that the grievances were already at arbitration.

The Tribunal exercised its discretion to defer the application pending the completion of the grievance process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment more than one year after her termination.

She argued the delay was in good faith because she expected her union to address the human rights issues in her grievance.

The Tribunal found the delay was not incurred in good faith, as the applicant knew by July 2008 that the union was not advancing discrimination claims but waited another seven months to file the application.

The application was dismissed for delay.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of place of origin in goods, services, or facilities, arising from a newspaper editorial that distinguished between 'locals' and 'imports'.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision raising concerns about its jurisdiction to hear the matter, specifically questioning whether being a 'local' constitutes a place of origin under the Code and whether an editorial amounts to a service.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide written submissions on how the allegations fall within the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in goods, services, and facilities based on an allegedly offensive advertisement in Applied Arts magazine.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the applicant to provide submissions explaining how the allegations fall within the Tribunal's jurisdiction under section 1 of the Human Rights Code, as it was not obviously apparent how the advertisement amounted to discrimination with respect to a good, service, or facility.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex, ancestry, creed, and reprisal.

The respondents objected that the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period and requested that they not be required to file a full response until the timeliness issue was resolved.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision establishing a timetable for the parties to make written submissions on whether the delay was incurred in good faith and whether substantial prejudice would result.

The Tribunal also directed the respondents to file a complete response to the application, noting that there may be additional preliminary issues to consider alongside the delay argument.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability, more than one year after the last incident.

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

The applicant submitted that the delay was due to her belief that her union grievance would proceed to arbitration.

The Tribunal scheduled a teleconference hearing to determine whether the delay was incurred in good faith and whether substantial prejudice would result, pursuant to section 34 of the Code.