Kathleen Martin

The applicant, who is Deaf, requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her application alleging the respondent failed to accommodate her by not providing a sign language interpreter for an initial meeting.

The applicant argued there was new evidence, including the respondent's accessibility policy, and that the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence such as Eldridge.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the new evidence could have been obtained earlier and was not determinative, and that the original decision was based on the specific facts of the case and did not conflict with established jurisprudence.

The applicant failed to comply with the Tribunal's directions to provide arguably relevant documents, a list of witnesses, and witness statements by the specified deadlines.

Despite a Case Assessment Direction warning that the application could be dismissed as abandoned if she failed to comply, the applicant did not file the required materials or communicate with the Tribunal.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had abandoned the application and dismissed it.

The respondent requested reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision, seeking costs related to an unsuccessful application brought by the applicant.

The Tribunal denied the request for reconsideration, noting that the respondent raised a new matter not raised during the hearing, failed to establish the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5, and that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to award costs.

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to remove a corporate respondent and two individual respondents as parties to an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The respondents argued that a different numbered company was the applicant's true employer.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the identity of the employer was unclear and required evidence to be heard.

The Tribunal also found it premature to remove the individual respondents, as their conduct regarding the applicant's return to work was a central issue that required a full evidentiary record.

The applicant filed a human rights application 31 months after his termination, 19 months beyond the one-year limitation period under the Human Rights Code.

He argued the delay was in good faith because he initially filed with the Canadian Human Rights Commission, believing the respondent was federally regulated.

The Tribunal found that while a genuine mistake about jurisdiction might explain initial delay, the applicant failed to explain the continuing delay after the respondent objected to federal jurisdiction and the applicant conceded the issue.

The application was dismissed for delay.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that deemed his human rights application abandoned after he failed to attend a summary hearing.

The applicant submitted that he did not receive notice of the hearing.

The respondent did not oppose the request and noted it also had not received a notice of hearing.

The Tribunal granted the reconsideration request, set aside the dismissal, and directed the respondent to file a complete response to the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application but failed to comply with the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure regarding the exchange of documents and witness statements.

The respondents filed a Request for Summary Hearing, to which the applicant did not respond.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction warning the applicant that failure to comply by a specified deadline could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to comply or communicate with the Tribunal.

As a result, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned and cancelled the scheduled hearing dates.

The applicant police services board filed an application alleging the respondent contravened Minutes of Settlement and confidentiality agreements by publicly disclosing information discussed during mediation.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that while the respondent disclosed information from the mediation, the confidentiality agreements were not incorporated into the terms of the settlement itself.

Furthermore, the respondent's public complaints did not constitute a legal claim or demand that would violate the full and final release in the settlement.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondents.

At the hearing, the applicant advised that one respondent had filed for bankruptcy and the corporate respondent was no longer in operation.

The applicant subsequently requested that the application be withdrawn against the corporate respondent and did not take steps to lift the stay against the bankrupt respondent.

The Tribunal ordered the application withdrawn against the corporate respondent and dismissed as abandoned against the individual respondent.

The respondents requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because the individual respondent's father was in serious medical condition in India.

The applicant opposed the request without providing reasons.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, noting the extraordinary circumstances and the fact that the respondent was unrepresented, but directed the respondent to file medical documentation upon his return.

The Tribunal also deferred the applicant's request to call a witness by telephone until the hearing is rescheduled.

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

The Tribunal scheduled a summary hearing by teleconference and provided notice to both parties.

Neither the applicant nor the respondent attended the scheduled hearing.

The adjudicator deemed the application abandoned due to the applicant's failure to attend or communicate with the Tribunal, and dismissed the application.

The respondents requested an adjournment of the hearing and a further extension to file documents and witness statements, citing the indefinite illness of their counsel.

The applicant opposed the request, noting the hearing was six weeks away and she had already secured an expert witness.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that adjournments are only granted in exceptional circumstances and that there was sufficient time for alternate counsel to assume carriage of the matter.

The applicant, a special education resource teacher, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal by the respondent school board.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success, and the applicant's union requested intervenor status.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene.

Following a written summary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed several of the applicant's allegations, including claims of reprisal and certain comments by staff, for having no reasonable prospect of success.

However, the Tribunal allowed other allegations to proceed, including comments made by the principal and the requirement to undergo an independent medical examination.

The applicant, a transit operator, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of perceived disability.

Following a customer complaint about route delays, the respondent manager questioned the applicant about his need to use the washroom twice during a route and allegedly asked if he had a medical problem.

The Tribunal found that the manager's inquiries did not constitute adverse treatment and were not based on a perceived disability, but rather were reasonable questions in the context of investigating a customer complaint about delay.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her application alleging discrimination with respect to services on the basis of disability by a hospital and its Mobile Crisis Intervention Team.

The applicant argued the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence and breached procedural fairness.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding the applicant was attempting to re-argue her case and failed to establish any of the threshold criteria for reconsideration under the Tribunal's Rules.

The applicant, a teacher married to another teacher employed by the same school board, alleged discrimination on the basis of marital and family status because she was denied family coverage under the employer's benefit plan.

The plan prohibited the internal coordination of benefits, meaning a person could not be insured as both an employee and a dependent.

The Tribunal found that the prohibition did not constitute discrimination on a prohibited ground, as any disadvantage arose from the terms of spousal employment rather than marital or family status.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of family status, claiming his contract was not renewed because of an issue involving his brother in the workplace.

The applicant argued his brother stood in a parent-child relationship to him.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success because the respondents had no knowledge of a parent-child type relationship between the siblings, and sibling status alone is not a protected ground under the Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability by a sales representative and regional manager of the respondent during the purchase of an assistive device.

The respondent sought to dismiss the application for delay and for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal deferred the issue of delay to allow the unrepresented applicant to file medical evidence explaining the late filing.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application for no reasonable prospect of success, finding that the allegations of inappropriate comments linked to disability required a hearing on the merits.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of a related grievance proceeding.

The applicant provided evidence that the grievance did not resolve at conciliation and the union decided not to proceed to arbitration.

As the respondents and the affected party did not oppose the request, the Tribunal granted the reactivation and ordered the respondents to file a Response within 35 days.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability after her registration in a master's program was deactivated.

The respondent university brought a request to dismiss the application for delay, arguing it was filed more than one year after the last incident of discrimination.

The Tribunal found that the last incident of discrimination was the applicant's withdrawal from the program, and that subsequent communications with the university were merely continuing effects rather than fresh incidents.

The Tribunal further held that the applicant failed to establish that the delay was incurred in good faith, as she provided no medical evidence of inability to pursue the claim and was working full-time during the relevant period.

The application was dismissed as untimely.