Kathleen Martin

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

The applicant also commenced a civil action based on the same facts, claiming damages for wrongful dismissal, and requested that the Tribunal defer the application until the court action is completed.

As the respondent did not object, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the civil proceeding.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability when the respondent hospital refused to accommodate her work restrictions.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the facts of the application were part of an ongoing union grievance that had been referred to arbitration.

The Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application pending the conclusion of the grievance, noting that it generally defers applications where there is an ongoing grievance based on the same facts and issues to avoid concurrent proceedings.

The applicant failed to comply with two Case Assessment Directions requiring her to deliver and file a witness list, witness statements, and documents, and to notify the Tribunal of her intentions regarding the application.

Having failed to comply or communicate with the Tribunal, the application was dismissed as abandoned and the scheduled hearing was cancelled.

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled case conference call regarding their human rights application against the school board.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed as abandoned.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application at this stage but issued directions requiring the applicant to explain their absence and confirm their intention to proceed.

The Tribunal also denied the applicant's requests for additional document disclosure, finding the requested documents were either irrelevant to the narrowed scope of the hearing or did not exist, and set the order of witnesses for the upcoming hearing.

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

A summary hearing was scheduled, and notice was provided to the applicant.

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

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the application on the basis that the applicant was deemed to have abandoned it.

The complainant was ordered in a previous interim decision to personally serve the remaining respondent with notice of the proceeding and file proof of service within 30 days.

The complainant failed to provide the required information or communicate with the Tribunal within the specified time.

Consequently, the Tribunal found that the complainant had abandoned the complaint and dismissed it.

The applicant alleged discrimination by his housing cooperative based on ethnic origin, creed, family status, and pregnancy, as well as reprisal, following his eviction and reports made to the Children's Aid Society.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations based on ethnic origin, creed, pregnancy, and reprisal, finding no reasonable prospect the applicant could establish a link between the cooperative's actions and the Code grounds.

The allegation of discrimination based on family status regarding the eviction was allowed to continue, subject to a further hearing on whether the application should be dismissed due to a related civil proceeding.

The complainant filed a human rights complaint alleging disability discrimination and reprisal against his former employer and three individual respondents.

The corporate respondent subsequently went bankrupt.

The complainant requested to remove the corporate respondent and proceed against the individuals.

The Tribunal removed the corporate respondent.

The Tribunal dismissed the complaint against one individual respondent due to lack of effective notice and prejudice from delay.

The Tribunal dismissed the complaint against a second individual respondent, finding the allegations against him were limited to following orders and did not support individual liability.

For the third individual respondent, the Tribunal ordered the complainant to effect personal service within 30 days, failing which the complaint would be abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, specifically a failure to accommodate following a work injury.

The respondent raised preliminary objections, including that the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the application was filed well over a year after the last incident of alleged discrimination.

The applicant argued the delay was incurred in good faith because she was unaware of her human rights options and was waiting for the outcome of a related WSIB proceeding.

The Tribunal held that ignorance of the law and waiting for other legal proceedings to conclude do not constitute a reasonable explanation for delay.

The application was dismissed.

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

The union requested to intervene on the issue of remedy, which was granted as unopposed.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates due to her counsel retiring from a legal clinic and the need for new counsel to prepare.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify delaying the hearing, but extended the deadline for filing witness statements to assist the parties in preparing.

The respondent requested an order to defer the human rights application pending the outcome of a re-opened hearing at the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB).

The applicant had filed an amended application at the LTB seeking compensation for the respondent's alleged failure to accommodate her environmental sensitivities, which overlapped with the facts and issues in the human rights application.

The Tribunal granted the deferral, finding a clear overlap between the proceedings and noting that the LTB hearing was scheduled to take place in less than a month.

The applicant filed a human rights application against multiple respondents.

The applicant was unable to provide a current, accurate address for the respondent Deb Armstrong despite requests from the Tribunal.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application against Armstrong under Rule 6.6(b).

The Tribunal also noted that the respondent Andrew Stobbe had not filed a response, warned him of the consequences of failing to participate, and provided a deadline for him to file a late response.

The applicant filed a human rights application but subsequently failed to comply with Tribunal rules regarding disclosure and failed to provide updated contact information.

The Tribunal and the respondent were unable to reach the applicant by mail, courier, or telephone.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had abandoned his application by failing to maintain current contact information and failing to comply with directions, and dismissed the application.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application alleging malicious prosecution and discrimination by the police and the Office of the Attorney General.

The original application was dismissed primarily due to delay.

The applicant argued that new evidence and other factors, including his mental breakdown and difficulties finding counsel, justified reconsideration.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish any new facts that could not have been obtained earlier or any other grounds outweighing the public interest in finality.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment regarding the termination of her long-term disability benefits.

The respondents sought to dismiss the application on the basis of delay, as it was filed more than one year after the last alleged incident.

The Tribunal found that the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation or establish that the delay was incurred in good faith under section 34(2).

Consequently, the application was dismissed.

The applicant, a graduate student, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race, ethnic origin, and colour, as well as reprisal, against the respondent university and two individuals.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed because it was filed beyond the one-year time limit set out in section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the last alleged incident of discrimination occurred more than 12 months prior to the filing of the application.

The Tribunal also found that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation to establish that the delay was incurred in good faith.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination and reprisal by his former employer, claiming he was denied several promotional opportunities in favour of younger candidates and subsequently laid off after seeking feedback on how to improve his chances of becoming a manager.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to point to any evidence, beyond mere speculation and the age differences between himself and the successful candidates, that could establish a link between his age and the respondent's decisions.

The Tribunal also found no reasonable prospect of establishing a reprisal claim, as the applicant's emails seeking feedback did not assert any Code rights.

The application was dismissed.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates because its primary witness was out of the country and on medical leave.

The applicant opposed the request, noting the hearing dates had been set for months and she had already made arrangements for her witnesses.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding that the absence of one witness did not impede the hearing of other witnesses.

The Tribunal directed the parties to make further submissions at the outset of the hearing regarding how and when the witness could be accommodated.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability after being laid off upon returning from a workplace injury.

The respondents failed to participate in the proceedings and were deemed to have accepted the allegations.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's disability was a factor in the denial of hours and subsequent permanent layoff, establishing a prima facie case of discrimination.

The respondents were ordered jointly and severally to pay $13,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and $6,273.75 for lost wages, and the individual respondent was ordered to complete human rights training.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability in services against a hospital and an emergency room physician.

The applicant was apprehended under the Mental Health Act and brought to the hospital, where the physician assessed her and subsequently reported her to the Ministry of Transportation, resulting in the suspension of her driver's license.

The physician requested that the application against him be dismissed at a summary hearing.

The Tribunal found that there was no reasonable prospect that the applicant could establish that the physician's actions, including his reliance on her history of mental health apprehensions and his decision not to inform her of the report, were discriminatory.

The application against the physician was dismissed.