Kathleen Martin

The applicant filed a human rights application and subsequently requested to add 1303939 Ontario Inc. as a respondent.

The existing respondents sought to be removed as parties, identifying 1303939 Ontario Inc. as the proper employer.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to add the new corporate respondent and ordered all respondents to file their responses within 35 days.

The applicant, who has a mobility disability, alleged discrimination after the respondents refused to allow him to bring his Segway on specialized transit vehicles.

The Tribunal found that while the policy prohibiting Segways was prima facie discriminatory, it was justified under s. 11 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondents met their procedural and substantive duty to accommodate, demonstrating that the Segway could not be safely secured during loading or transport due to its lack of brakes and tie-down points, and that accommodating it would cause undue hardship.

The applicant filed a human rights application against her former manager alleging discrimination in employment.

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to add the corporate employer, SIR Corp., as a respondent and to remove the individual manager.

The Tribunal added SIR Corp. as a party, noting that the allegations arose out of the applicant's employment and the corporation could be vicariously liable.

However, the Tribunal declined to remove the individual manager at this early stage, given her central role in the allegations.

The respondents' Request for Summary Hearing was also denied.

The applicant, a personal support worker, filed an application alleging racial discrimination in her termination and prior discipline by the respondent hospital.

The Tribunal directed a summary hearing on its own initiative to determine if the application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant alleged she was treated differently than a white colleague involved in the same incident and that a director made a discriminatory comment.

The Tribunal found that, assuming the facts alleged were true, it could not conclude there was no reasonable prospect of success in establishing a link between the events and race.

The application was allowed to continue in the Tribunal's process.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in services, housing, and contracts on the basis of ancestry and family status, as well as reprisal, arising from a dispute over his mother's placement in a nursing home and related property issues.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting the application failed to identify specific acts of discrimination or explain how the respondents' conduct related to a prohibited ground or constituted a reprisal under the Human Rights Code.

Finding no relationship between the Code and the allegations, the Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The respondent in a human rights application alleging disability discrimination requested an order directing the applicant to produce a detailed witness statement and income tax returns for 2012 and 2013.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the application's narrative was sparse and that the tax returns were relevant to the applicant's claim for compensation and benefits.

The applicant brought an uncontested request to anonymize the proceeding and amend her human rights application.

The applicant alleged she was sexually assaulted by a manager at the respondent's restaurant.

The Tribunal granted the request to anonymize, finding that the stigma associated with the alleged sexual assault justified a minor interference with the openness of proceedings.

The Tribunal also permitted the applicant to amend her application to add an allegation of failure to investigate and to update the remedies sought, noting the amendment would not significantly add to hearing time.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because it had recently retained new counsel following the wind-down of another law firm.

The applicant opposed the request, noting the hearing was still five weeks away.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding that a change of counsel is not generally considered an exceptional circumstance justifying an adjournment, and that new counsel had sufficient time to prepare for the straightforward hearing.

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

He subsequently filed a Request for Interim Remedy seeking immediate reinstatement to a position at the Canada Centre work site.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant failed to establish that the balance of harm favoured granting the interim remedy or that it was necessary to ensure the Tribunal could award a complete and effective remedy at the end of the hearing.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights applications against the respondent pension plan.

He argued the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence regarding the test for prima facie discrimination and failed to consider key evidence.

The Tribunal reviewed the request under Rule 26.5 and found that the previous decision correctly applied the law, including the requirement to establish disadvantage, and adequately addressed the central issues.

Finding no compelling or extraordinary circumstances, the Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration.

The respondents in a human rights application requested an order for the production of the applicant's employment records from a non-party, Craiglee Nursing Home.

The respondents, who were former owners and managers of the nursing home, argued they no longer had access to the records needed to respond to the applicant's allegations of failure to accommodate.

The Tribunal found the requested documents arguably relevant and ordered the non-party to produce them, subject to the non-party's right to object.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by her local union, the national union, and various union officials on the basis of disability, sex, association, and marital status.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether the allegations had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations based on disability, sex, and association, finding no evidence linking the alleged adverse treatment to those protected grounds.

The Tribunal also dismissed all allegations against the national union respondents, holding that the national union did not have a free-standing duty under the Human Rights Code to investigate allegations of discrimination by a separate legal entity (the local union).

However, the Tribunal allowed the allegations of discrimination based on marital status against the local union respondents to proceed, finding they could not be dismissed at the summary hearing stage.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the remaining allegations under s. 45.1 or as an abuse of process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability against his former employer and individual respondents.

The applicant's former union, CAW Local 414, filed a Request to Intervene to address any proposed resolution that might impact its bargaining rights.

The respondents did not object, but the applicant objected without providing reasons.

The Tribunal granted the union's Request to Intervene, noting its established practice that a union nearly always has an interest in an application brought by a member of its bargaining unit.

The Tribunal also provided directions regarding the attendance of the applicant's physician at the upcoming hearing.

The respondents sought a continuing adjournment of the hearing based on medical evidence regarding a shoulder injury and medication affecting concentration.

The Tribunal found the medical evidence insufficient to justify an ongoing adjournment, noting inconsistencies regarding the respondent's decision to undergo surgery and a lack of explanation as to how the symptoms prevented participation in the hearing.

The Tribunal directed that the hearing be scheduled.

The Tribunal also accepted a letter authorizing one respondent to represent the other without requiring further documentation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in services by the police on the basis of receipt of public assistance.

The applicant alleged that police officers knocked hard on his door, entered his apartment, and searched it, causing him to fall out of bed and injure his shoulder.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because receipt of public assistance is not a prohibited ground of discrimination in the social area of services under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found it plain and obvious that the application was outside its jurisdiction and dismissed it.

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

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation session and did not communicate with the Tribunal to explain her absence.

The Tribunal subsequently directed the applicant to advise of her intentions, warning that failure to respond could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant did not respond.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment during an interview for a position at a foreign bank representative office.

The respondents challenged the Tribunal's jurisdiction, arguing that the bank is a federally-regulated undertaking.

The Tribunal applied the functional and derivative jurisdiction tests to determine the constitutional character of the representative office.

Finding that the office was functionally integrated with the foreign bank and its activities were vital and integral to the core banking functions, the Tribunal concluded that the operation was a federal undertaking.

Consequently, the application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code, which was deferred pending the completion of an Employment Standards Act proceeding.

The Tribunal subsequently sent multiple letters to the applicant and her alternative contact requesting an update on the status of the other proceeding, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant failed to respond to any correspondence.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

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

The applicant argued that the grievance had been dismissed and she was unable to obtain updates from her union.

The respondent opposed the reactivation, providing evidence that the grievance was still advancing and a Conciliation Officer had been requested.

The Tribunal denied the request to reactivate, finding that the grievance process was still ongoing.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal scheduled a summary hearing by conference call and provided notice to the parties.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing and did not communicate with the Tribunal to explain the absence.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, deeming it to have been abandoned.