Kathleen Martin

The Tribunal reconsidered its previous interim decision which had ordered the respondent to file a Response and explain its failure to do so.

It was discovered that the respondent had in fact filed a Response, though late, but it was misplaced due to an administrative error.

The Tribunal accepted the late Response, vacated the previous order, and directed the matter to mediation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination after he was not selected for an interview for a permanent position with the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services.

The respondents, the Ministry and the individual manager who screened the applications, requested an order to remove the individual manager as a party.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding no issue with the Ministry's vicarious liability or ability to remedy the alleged violation, and no compelling reason for the individual respondent to remain a party.

The applicant filed a human rights application.

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

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent that failure to file a Response by a specified final deadline could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming the respondent to have accepted the allegations.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sexual orientation after being removed as an altar server following complaints by parishioners.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the applicant to provide further submissions explaining how the parishioners' conduct falls within the social areas covered by the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal also directed the Diocese and the Bishop to file a complete Response to all issues raised in the application, noting that the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure require complete Responses prior to making preliminary jurisdictional objections.

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 and granted a final extension to October 9, 2009, to file a Response and explain the delay.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission filed a Request for an Order during Proceedings seeking to withdraw from the human rights complaint.

The Commission had not been participating in the hearing dates.

As no other parties responded or requested transitional directions, the Tribunal allowed the Commission's request to withdraw and removed it from the title of proceeding.

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

The respondent requested the application be dismissed for delay.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to file written submissions explaining why the delay was incurred in good faith and why no substantial prejudice would result, pursuant to section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code.

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

The respondents made no submissions on the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment and reprisal, three and a half years after his termination.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss due to the delay.

After receiving the applicant's written submissions explaining the delay, the Tribunal issued an interim decision scheduling 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 Human Rights Code.

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

The respondent requested early dismissal, arguing the matter had been resolved through a union grievance process, though the applicant had not signed the settlement.

The Tribunal denied the early dismissal request because no full and final release was signed, and directed the respondent to file a full Response.

The Tribunal also granted the union's request to intervene in the proceedings, noting its interest in the accommodation process and collective agreement implications.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the president of his condominium's board of directors.

The respondent requested that the application be withdrawn against the individual president and that the condominium corporation be added as the respondent instead.

The applicant consented to this request.

The Tribunal ordered the application withdrawn against the individual, added the condominium corporation as the respondent, and directed the corporation to file a response.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent employer.

The respondent was under protection pursuant to the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA), which stayed proceedings against it.

After the Superior Court extended the CCAA stay, the Tribunal issued an interim decision directing that no further steps be taken in the human rights proceeding for up to one year.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to advise if she wishes to proceed once the stay expires, failing which the application may be dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed two human rights applications alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal arising from his attempts to inspect pension plan documents.

The applicant requested that the two applications be consolidated.

The Tribunal granted the request to hear the applications together, finding that they involved the same parties and sufficiently similar facts and issues.

The Tribunal also directed the parties to file further submissions regarding the respondents' request to remove the individual respondents as parties.

The Tribunal held a teleconference to address whether a human rights complaint was stayed against a corporate respondent subject to proceedings under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA).

The Tribunal confirmed that the proceeding was stayed against the corporate respondent and granted the complainant until September 15, 2009, to seek leave from the Superior Court of Justice to lift the stay.

The applicant requested to expedite the hearing of her human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal.

She cited urgent circumstances, including the exhaustion of employment insurance benefits, pending eviction proceedings, and precarious health that could deteriorate if she were forced to move to unsuitable housing.

The respondent did not file a response.

The Tribunal granted the request to expedite, finding that the applicant's continuing health issues, need for accommodation, and pending eviction constituted urgent circumstances that could affect the fair and just resolution of the application.

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

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, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice and deem the respondent to have accepted the allegations.

The applicant, a teaching assistant and graduate student, filed an application alleging discrimination in employment and housing, along with a Request to Expedite Proceedings.

He claimed urgent circumstances, including financial hardship and temporary homelessness resulting from an investigation into his conduct.

The respondents opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the Request to Expedite, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate truly urgent circumstances requiring rapid resolution compared to the regular process, noting ambiguity in his situation and his extended visit to the United States.

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 filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment and vocational association based on her political beliefs and role as a union representative.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting that union activity and political beliefs are not protected grounds under the Human Rights Code.

Finding no connection to any Code-protected ground, the Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

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

The respondent consented to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal granted leave to withdraw the application and cancelled the scheduled hearing.