Mary Truemner

The applicant alleged that the respondent discriminated against him on the basis of disability by providing inferior customer service and making calculation errors regarding his disability benefits, compared to the service provided for his other financial products.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the applications, finding no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal concluded that the different financial products were not comparable services and that there was no evidence linking the alleged poor service to the applicant's disability.

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 and Notice of Incomplete Application, directing the applicant to respond by a specified date.

The applicant failed to respond.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application more than a year after the termination of her employment.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine if the delay was incurred in good faith.

The applicant argued she mistakenly believed she had two years to file and that her disability caused anxiety.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's mistaken belief and health issues did not establish good faith, as she was able to retain counsel and pursue employment standards claims during the same period.

The application was dismissed as untimely.

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

The respondent previously failed to participate and was deemed to have accepted the allegations.

A case management conference call was scheduled, and notice was provided to the applicant.

When the applicant failed to attend the conference call or provide an explanation, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

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

A summary hearing was scheduled to determine if the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant emailed the Tribunal stating she would not attend, citing dissatisfaction with a previous direction.

Despite being warned that failure to attend could result in dismissal, the applicant did not appear at the scheduled hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to amend its Response to the Application of Mr. Burmaster.

The applicant consented to the request, provided he could refer to the initial draft at the hearing.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding no prejudice to the applicants and noting that the hearing was still months away.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to services based on race, ethnic origin, and age at the respondents' grocery store.

At the scheduled hearing, the respondents failed to appear.

The applicant elected to withdraw his application, noting that the respondents had apologized in their Response and that his goal of educating them about their obligations under the Human Rights Code had been met.

The Tribunal granted the request to withdraw the application.

The applicants, employed as correctional officers, filed human rights applications alleging reprisal and discrimination.

Shortly before the scheduled hearing, their legal counsel, the African Canadian Legal Clinic, ceased representation due to funding issues.

The applicants requested an adjournment and an extension of time to file witness statements and documents.

The Tribunal found the sudden loss of counsel and the complexity of the case constituted extraordinary circumstances justifying an adjournment, and granted the requests.

The applicant requested to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the completion of an ongoing proceeding before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice regarding disability benefits.

Although the respondent consented to the reactivation, the Tribunal denied the request because the parallel court matter had not yet concluded, as required by the Tribunal's rules for deferred applications.

The applicant sought to amend her human rights application to add an allegation of reprisal regarding legal fees charged by the condominium corporation to the new owners of her former unit.

The Tribunal denied the request to amend, finding it premature because the applicant was not currently being charged the fees and was not adversely affected by them at this time.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on race and ancestry.

Prior to the hearing, the respondent filed a Request for Interim Remedy seeking an order to prevent the applicant from painting the apartment building due to the respondent's asthma.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that while the Human Rights Code may allow remedies for a respondent if an infringement is found, it does not provide jurisdiction to award an interim remedy to a respondent where no determination of an infringement has been made.

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

The Tribunal attempted to deliver the application to the respondent, but it was returned as moved/unknown.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide more information regarding the respondent's address and warned that failure to do so could result in the file being closed.

The applicant failed to respond by the deadline.

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

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

The corporate respondent failed to file a Response despite being served with the Application, a previous Interim Decision, and a Case Assessment Direction warning of the consequences of failing to respond.

Pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal ordered that the corporate respondent is deemed to have accepted all allegations in the Application, waived all rights to notice or participation, and is not entitled to further notice.

A case management conference call was scheduled to determine next steps.

The applicant filed an application under s. 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 by the specified deadline.

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

The applicant alleged reprisal and discrimination based on family status after his employment was terminated following a request for a shift change to see his children.

The respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to amend its Response to add details regarding the reasons for denying the shift change and terminating the applicant's employment.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the amendments would assist rather than prejudice the applicant, and extended the deadline for both parties to file their witness statements and documents.

The applicant filed an application alleging age discrimination after his employment was terminated by the respondent.

The respondent named the staffing agency that placed the applicant as an affected person.

The staffing agency filed a Request to Intervene.

The Tribunal applied the factors for intervention and granted the request, finding the agency had a significant interest and could provide assistance regarding the facts and context of the applicant's employment.

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

The Tribunal was unable to deliver the application to the respondent at the provided address and directed the applicant to provide a current address.

The applicant failed to respond to multiple communications from the Tribunal.

Consequently, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application against his employer more than a year after the last alleged incident of discrimination.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed for delay.

The applicant argued the delay was justified by his fear of reprisal and stress related to family illness.

The Tribunal found that fear of reprisal does not constitute good faith for delay, and the applicant failed to provide medical evidence that his stress or family circumstances prevented him from pursuing his rights in a timely manner.

The application was dismissed as untimely.

The applicant filed a human rights application and was represented by an unlicensed individual who had previously been declared a vexatious litigant.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to explain how the representative met the Law Society's exemptions for providing legal services without a licence.

The Tribunal found that the representative did not fall within the exemption for an unpaid friend or neighbour, as he was acting in more than three matters per year.

The Tribunal ordered the representative removed from the proceeding.