Kathleen Martin

The respondents requested to defer the human rights application pending the resolution of the applicant's grievance.

The respondents subsequently advised the Tribunal that the grievance had been withdrawn.

Finding that there was no other proceeding to defer to, the Tribunal denied the request to defer and directed that the application be scheduled for mediation.

The respondent sought to defer the human rights application pending the resolution of a related criminal charge.

The applicant submitted that the request was moot because the criminal charges had been withdrawn.

The respondent did not reply to the Tribunal's request for a response on this issue.

The Tribunal found the request to defer was moot and denied it, directing that the application continue to be processed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in services on the basis of disability after being prevented from taking his segway on specialized transit buses.

The respondent City of London requested to be removed as a party, arguing that the transit services are owned and controlled by the London Transit Commission, a separate corporate entity.

The Tribunal granted the request and dismissed the application against the City, finding no specific allegations or basis for liability against it.

The applicant, a minor represented by her father, alleged discrimination with respect to goods, services, and facilities on the basis of race and ancestry after she was not selected for a competitive swimming program.

The respondent argued that the selection process was based on merit and that there were limited spots available.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

Finding that the applicant's claims were based on speculation and that there was no evidence linking the respondent's decision to the applicant's race or ancestry, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

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

Neither party complied with their disclosure obligations under Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the hearing on consent, citing the applicant's recent intention to call expert medical evidence.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify it, and ordered both parties to immediately file their required materials or face consequences, including dismissal of the application or exclusion of witnesses.

Following a Divisional Court decision remitting the issue of joint and several liability back to the Tribunal, the Tribunal reconsidered the allocation of a $30,000 damages award for a poisoned work environment and discriminatory termination.

The Tribunal found the corporate principals jointly and severally liable with the corporation for $22,500 of the damages, reflecting their role in the termination and their failure to address the poisoned work environment, while the corporation remained solely liable for the remaining $7,500 attributable to the discriminatory conduct of other agents.

The applicant, who was self-represented, requested a second adjournment of a preliminary hearing scheduled to address the respondents' request to dismiss the application.

The applicant cited a delay in receiving the Tribunal's previous interim decision denying his first adjournment request, as well as personal circumstances involving his daughter's medical condition.

The respondents opposed the request but did not assert any prejudice.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding exceptional circumstances justified the request, including the lack of timely notice of the previous decision, the applicant's unrepresented status, and the unchallenged personal circumstances.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability by her employer, including failure to accommodate and imposing an unpaid leave of absence.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant had also filed grievances under her collective agreement regarding the same issues.

After receiving submissions from the respondent and the union, the Tribunal decided to defer the application pending the resolution of one specific grievance (Grievance 2012-4) that directly overlapped with the application.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled preliminary hearing because he would be preoccupied with his daughter commencing university studies.

Although the respondent consented to the request, the Tribunal denied the adjournment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying a late adjournment request, noting that the hearing date had been set on consent over three months prior.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to services on the basis of disability.

The applicant repeatedly failed to comply with Tribunal directions regarding disclosure, witness statements, and attendance at a conference call.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed as an abuse of process.

After the applicant failed to respond to the request or subsequent Tribunal directions, the Tribunal found that the applicant had abandoned the application and dismissed it.

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

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking particulars of the application, arguing the allegations were framed in general terms.

The applicant did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, ordering the applicant to provide particulars of the allegations, as the application lacked specific facts regarding the circumstances, timing, and individuals involved in the alleged discrimination.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code alleging discrimination in employment.

The Tribunal previously issued a Case Assessment Direction noting that one of the individual respondents was no longer employed by the organizational respondent and could not be reached, proposing his removal unless objected to.

As no party filed submissions objecting to the removal within the specified time, the Tribunal ordered the individual respondent removed from the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex, claiming she was terminated from her position as a cleaner and lost her housing after disclosing her pregnancy.

She brought a request to expedite the proceedings, citing her pregnancy and impending loss of housing.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant had not provided sufficient details to demonstrate that the financial impact or loss of housing constituted truly urgent circumstances requiring priority over other applications.

The parties were directed to schedule mediation.

The applicants, twin boys with autism and severe developmental disabilities, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability after being discharged from the respondent's Autism Intervention Service, which resulted in a loss of funding for Intensive Behavioural Intervention (IBI) treatment.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the applications for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the decision to discharge was a clinical one and that the applicants failed to provide evidence linking the discharge or the evaluation process to discriminatory factors based on their disabilities.

The applications were dismissed.

The applicant, a jail guard, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability after being placed in the employer's Attendance Support and Management Pilot Program following absences related to a WSIB injury.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant could not establish that she suffered a disadvantage, as the attendance meeting was non-disciplinary, the employer offered accommodation, and the absences were ultimately removed from the program's calculation.

The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, sex, and family status following her termination.

The respondents requested an order removing the personal respondent from the proceeding.

Applying the factors from Persuad, the Tribunal granted the request, noting that the organizational respondent accepted liability for the personal respondent's actions, there was no issue regarding the organization's ability to remedy any infringement, and the personal respondent's presence as a party was not necessary for a fair resolution.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates on consent of the applicants.

The respondent's business had recently been sold, and the new owners and management had no knowledge of the application, as all correspondence had been sent to the previous owner.

The Tribunal found that the lack of notice to the new owners and the proximity of the hearing dates constituted exceptional circumstances.

The request to adjourn was granted, and deadlines for filing materials were extended.

The applicant's wife filed a Request to Intervene in a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing on the basis of family status.

The proposed intervenor sought to be added as a full party, claiming she was a victim of eviction and harassment.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the proposed intervenor was attempting to circumvent the limitation period to become an applicant and had not identified any assistance she could provide to the Tribunal that the applicant could not provide.

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

A summary hearing was scheduled by conference call, and notice was provided 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 as abandoned.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in services brought several interim requests.

She sought to amend her application to clarify allegations regarding a mobile crisis unit visit, requested an advance ruling on the admissibility of third-party medical records, and sought production of police records.

The Tribunal denied the request to amend due to the late stage of the hearing, declined to rule on the medical records in advance of oral evidence, and denied the production requests for police records due to lack of notice, lateness, and speculative relevance.