Kathleen Martin

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

The respondent requested dismissal on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release.

After the applicant failed to respond to a Case Assessment Direction requiring submissions on the request to dismiss, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the application on the basis that it appeared to be outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice within the required timeframe.

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

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) on the basis that the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction, directing the applicant to respond by a specified date.

The applicant failed to respond to the NOID.

As a result, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant was directed to respond but failed to do so within the required time.

As a result, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) on the basis that 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 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 human rights application against three respondents.

One respondent filed a response, but the other two did not.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the non-responding respondents of the consequences of failing to participate under Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The Tribunal granted the non-responding respondents 10 days to file their responses along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice to them.

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

A Notice of Mediation was sent to the applicant, but she failed to attend the scheduled mediation session.

The Tribunal subsequently wrote to the applicant directing her to advise of her intentions and 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 an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondents failed to file a Response by the deadline set in the Notice of Application.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondents of the consequences of failing to participate, including the possibility of the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming the allegations accepted.

The respondents were granted 10 days to file a Response along with an explanation for the delay.

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

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

The applicant failed to respond to the NOID within the required timeframe.

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

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the application on the basis that it appeared to be outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice within the required timeframe.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned 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 would 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 an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

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

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

As a result, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application which was deferred pending the conclusion of a WSIB appeal.

The Tribunal subsequently wrote to the applicant requesting an update on the status of the WSIB appeal and warned that failure to respond could result in dismissal.

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's correspondence.

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

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code but failed to attend a scheduled mediation session.

The Tribunal issued multiple directions requiring the applicant to confirm his intention to proceed with the application.

The applicant failed to provide a clear response or comply with the Tribunal's directions.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination in employment against Hudson's Bay Company.

The applicant subsequently filed a Request for Order During Proceeding to add Advantage Personnel Ltd. as a respondent.

As both the current and proposed respondents consented to the request, the Tribunal granted the order and added Advantage Personnel Ltd. as a party.

The matter was scheduled for mediation.

The applicant sought to reactivate her deferred human rights application after her union settled a related grievance without her agreement.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed on the basis that it was settled as part of the grievance process.

The Tribunal reactivated the application, granted the union's request to intervene, and directed the parties to provide written submissions regarding the respondents' request to dismiss the application as settled, in order to determine the format of the upcoming hearing on that issue.

The applicant filed a human rights application against corporate and individual respondents.

The individual respondent failed to file a Response.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the individual respondent to file a Response within 10 days or face consequences under Rule 5.5, including proceeding without him.

Additionally, noting a parallel complaint before the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the Tribunal directed the parties to provide written submissions on whether the application should be deferred.

The complainant, a female real estate agent, alleged she was subjected to a poisoned work environment and terminated on the basis of sex and gender.

She experienced derogatory name-calling, exclusion, and a persistent false sexual rumour involving her manager.

The Tribunal found that the employer failed to reasonably investigate or address her complaints, allowing the poisoned environment to flourish.

The Tribunal concluded that the complainant's gender was a factor in the adverse treatment and that the discriminatory environment contributed to her termination.

The corporate respondent was ordered to pay $30,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

Claims for lost income and personal liability against individual respondents were dismissed.

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

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

The applicant failed to provide written submissions in response to the NOID by the specified deadline.

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