Kathleen Martin

The applicant, a self-identified Black person of East Indian origin, alleged that his union discriminated against him on the basis of race.

He claimed the union improperly excluded him from running for union positions, ignored his offer to volunteer, failed to intervene when he was subjected to humiliating comments at a meeting, and failed to adequately investigate his complaints of racism.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no evidence to link the union's actions to the applicant's race.

The Tribunal also found that the union's response to his complaints, while perhaps lacking promptness, was reasonable in the circumstances.

The respondents requested an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for January 17, 2012, citing the applicant's late disclosure of documents and inadequate witness statements.

The applicant consented to the adjournment, noting that some of his documents were destroyed when his residence was condemned.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding it fair and expeditious to resolve outstanding production requests and obtain proper witness statements before commencing the hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment leading to her termination.

The respondents requested dismissal for lack of jurisdiction or deferral pending a related complaint filed with the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

As the applicant consented to deferral, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the federal complaint, leaving the jurisdictional issue to be decided if the application is reactivated.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and failure to accommodate leading up to and including her termination.

The respondent sought to dismiss the application on the basis that the parties had previously signed Minutes of Settlement resolving a union grievance regarding her discharge, and that the remaining allegations were untimely.

The Tribunal found that the applicant freely entered into the settlement without duress, making it an abuse of process to litigate the termination.

The Tribunal further held that the pre-termination accommodation allegations were filed beyond the one-year limitation period and the applicant failed to establish a good faith explanation for the delay.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on race, ethnic origin, family status, marital status, and age regarding his interactions with police and the judicial system, including malicious prosecution and delay in destroying fingerprint records.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine if it had jurisdiction given the delay in filing and the lack of identified discriminatory acts.

The Tribunal found that the timely allegations regarding fingerprint destruction had no credible connection to the Code.

For the remaining allegations, which were filed more than a year after the incidents, the Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, and thus the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The application was dismissed.

The respondent Anoo Pelletier filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking her removal as a party on the basis that the accusations against her do not fall under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request and removed Anoo Pelletier as a party to the proceeding.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and age against her former employer, Craiglee Nursing Home, and its individual owners.

Craiglee was placed into receivership.

The applicant requested to withdraw the application against Craiglee and proceed only against the individual respondents.

The individual respondents argued the proceeding against them should be stayed pursuant to the Receivership Order and s. 215 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The Tribunal granted the request to withdraw against Craiglee and found that the stay provisions did not apply to the individual respondents.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide detailed particulars of her allegations against the individual respondents to determine if personal liability could be found.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Confirmation of Hearing, scheduling the hearing for October 31 and November 1, 2011.

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

After waiting 40 minutes, the Tribunal proceeded and dismissed the application on the basis that it was deemed abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability against a hospital and a physician.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal scheduled a summary hearing to determine whether the allegations against the physician should be dismissed based on his statutory duty to report under the Highway Traffic Act.

The Tribunal also resolved outstanding disclosure issues, ordering the hospital to produce certain records and witness qualifications.

Finally, the Tribunal dismissed the applicant's request to state a case for contempt to the Divisional Court, finding no prima facie evidence that the hospital's counsel deliberately or wilfully disobeyed Tribunal directions.

The applicant, a condominium owner, alleged that the respondent condominium corporation's declaration restricting occupancy to a 'one family residence' forced him to discriminate against prospective student tenants, claiming discrimination based on family status and reprisal.

The respondent sought to dismiss the application based on a prior consent judgment and the Court of Appeal's decision in Kilfoyl, which upheld the same declaration.

The Tribunal struck the family status allegations, finding the Kilfoyl decision binding and determinative of that issue.

However, the Tribunal permitted the applicant to amend the application to explicitly plead reprisal and allowed the reprisal claim to proceed, as it was not explicitly addressed in Kilfoyl.

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

The Commission confirmed it had provided a copy of the disclosure material to all respondents and the complainant.

As no parties responded to the request and no transitional directions were required, the Tribunal allowed the Commission's request to withdraw.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application for abandonment after he failed to attend a scheduled mediation.

The Tribunal granted the reconsideration request because new evidence showed the applicant had contacted Tribunal staff by telephone and email after the initial notice, meaning the basis for the deemed abandonment was incorrect.

The dismissal was set aside and the application was directed to proceed to a hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of colour and disability against her employer, First Canada ULC, its employees, and the administrator of its short-term disability plan, Manulife.

The respondents requested dismissal on jurisdictional grounds.

The Tribunal found that First Canada's Barrie Transit Branch is functionally integrated with its interprovincial transportation business, making it a single federal undertaking outside provincial human rights jurisdiction.

The Tribunal also dismissed the application against Manulife, as it merely administered a self-insured plan for the employer and no specific allegations of discrimination were made against it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination after being laid off and repeatedly passed over for promotions in favour of younger candidates.

The respondent brought a preliminary request to dismiss several allegations, arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction over positions located in California and that earlier incidents were out of time.

The Tribunal found it had jurisdiction over the California positions because the hiring process occurred in Toronto, establishing a sufficient connection to Ontario.

Regarding delay, the Tribunal found that most of the earlier job competitions constituted a 'series of incidents' under section 34 of the Human Rights Code and were therefore timely.

However, one discrete incident regarding the creation of a position for a displaced manager was struck from the application as it was not part of the series and the applicant failed to establish a good faith reason for the delay.

The applicant, who has strabismus, was denied the opportunity to continue in the application process for a police constable position because he failed to meet the stereo acuity vision standard.

He alleged discrimination on the basis of disability.

The Tribunal found that the standard was prima facie discriminatory and that the respondents failed to establish it as a bona fide occupational requirement.

The evidence did not demonstrate that the standard was reasonably necessary to ensure the safe performance of police driving duties.

The Tribunal awarded the applicant $8,000 for injury to dignity, ordered the issuance of a Certificate of Results, and directed the respondents to cease relying on the standard.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging a failure to accommodate and failure to recall him to employment.

The respondents and the intervening union requested that the application be deferred pending the completion of a related grievance proceeding that raised the same human rights issues.

The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the facts and issues in the application and the grievance, which had been referred to arbitration.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process.

The applicant sought to continue her human rights applications after signing a Memorandum of Settlement and Release at mediation, alleging she signed under duress, coercion, and deception.

The Tribunal found no compelling reason to set aside the settlement, noting the applicant was represented by counsel at the time and provided no evidence of being forced or threatened to sign.

The Tribunal concluded that permitting the applications to proceed would be an abuse of process and dismissed them.

The applicant requested that her human rights hearing, scheduled for September 2011, be expedited to June 2011 due to a pending eviction and personal stress.

The Tribunal treated the request as a motion to expedite.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the circumstances were not truly urgent so as to warrant giving the application priority over others, particularly given the short timeframe requested and the respondent's objection.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the NOID by the specified deadline.

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

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking the contact information of two named respondents whose Notices of Application were returned as incomplete.

The Tribunal ordered the corporate respondent to produce the last known contact information for the two former employees to facilitate delivery of the Application.