Mary Truemner

The respondents requested the removal of four personal respondents from a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting the corporate respondent accepted responsibility for the employees' conduct and there was no compelling reason to keep them as parties.

The Tribunal also issued directions requiring the applicant to clarify whether she intends to testify, whether she will call the author of a psychoeducational report as an expert witness, and whether her mother will act as both her representative and a witness at the upcoming hearing.

At the commencement of the hearing for an application alleging discrimination based on family status, the intervenor union requested to withdraw on consent.

The Tribunal granted the request and removed the union from the style of cause.

The applicant filed an application alleging sexual solicitation and advances in employment.

The hearing was previously adjourned due to the personal respondent's illness.

The personal respondent submitted medical evidence indicating he is bed-bound with myasthenia gravis and atrial fibrillation, and is unlikely to ever be able to participate in a hearing.

The applicant sought to proceed, while the respondents argued it would be unfair to proceed without the personal respondent.

The Tribunal found that further adjournments would be of no value given the prognosis, and ordered the hearing to be scheduled, noting the respondents could seek to introduce the personal respondent's evidence by affidavit.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on age, ethnicity, and place of origin.

The respondents requested dismissal of the application under s. 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the applicant had commenced a civil action seeking damages for the same alleged Code infringements.

The Tribunal found that the civil claim arose from the same factual context and sought remedies for the same alleged infringements regarding ethnicity and place of origin.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed those allegations for lack of jurisdiction and directed the applicant to provide further particulars if she wished to proceed with the age discrimination claim.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex (pregnancy), claiming her employment was terminated because she was pregnant.

The applicant had also filed a wrongful dismissal claim in Small Claims Court based on the same facts.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the application pending the resolution of the Small Claims Court action.

Finding significant overlap in the factual events and seeking to avoid inconsistent decisions, the Tribunal ordered the application deferred pending the completion of the court action.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination regarding a pharmaceutical product received in Alberta.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application was filed more than one year after the last alleged incident.

The applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay.

The Tribunal found the delay was not incurred in good faith and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment more than one year after the last alleged incident.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for delay.

The applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay to establish good faith under section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed as untimely.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of disability, specifically regarding the respondent's failure to accommodate her need for administrative work following a corporate restructuring.

Prior to the hearing, the applicant, her union, and the respondent signed Minutes of Settlement resolving a grievance on the same issue, which explicitly acknowledged that the provided accommodation met her needs.

The Tribunal dismissed the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, finding that the grievance settlement constituted another proceeding that had appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The applicant, a former police officer, alleged discrimination in employment on the grounds of perceived ancestry and creed.

The respondents brought a request to remove several personal respondents from the proceeding, and the applicant's union requested intervenor status.

The Tribunal applied the test for removing personal respondents, retaining three individuals whose alleged conduct was central to the application and could support personal liability, while removing four others whose actions were in the normal course of employment and for whom the corporate respondent would be vicariously liable.

The union's request to intervene was granted.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in accommodation on the basis of place of origin and citizenship, claiming the respondents required him to pay 12 months' rent in advance because he was a newcomer to Canada.

The parties reached a settlement and filed a joint request for a consent order under s. 45.9(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal granted the request and ordered the parties to issue a joint media statement acknowledging the settlement and the respondents' commitment to human rights compliance.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to add the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission (ONTC) as a respondent to his human rights application alleging discrimination in the provision of accessible bus services.

Applying the Smyth test, the Tribunal found that the allegations could support a Code violation, there was a compelling reason to add ONTC as it is responsible for the bus service, and it would be fair to do so.

The request to add ONTC as a respondent was granted.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the completion of an ongoing union grievance.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer and directed the parties to provide written submissions.

As no objections were received from the respondent or the union, the Tribunal found it appropriate to defer the application to avoid duplication of proceedings and the possibility of inconsistent decisions.

The applicant requested to reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the outcome of a related Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) proceeding.

The applicant argued that the WSIB process was delayed and causing prejudice.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the WSIB proceeding had not concluded and still dealt with overlapping facts and issues, and that delay alone did not justify reactivation.

The respondents filed a Request for Summary Hearing regarding an application alleging discrimination in employment.

The Tribunal denied the request without reasons in accordance with Rule 19A.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice, and reminded the parties of their obligations to file and serve documents and witness lists prior to the rescheduled hearing.

The applicants, francophone students attending a designated Sports School outside their residential boundaries, alleged that the respondent's by-law modification restricting athletic eligibility for out-of-boundary students disproportionately affected them based on ancestry and ethnic origin.

They requested an interim remedy to suspend the modification.

The Tribunal denied the interim remedy, finding no arguable case that the modification disproportionately affected francophone students compared to anglophone students.

Consequently, the Tribunal directed a summary hearing on its own initiative to determine if the applications should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing.

Following mediation, the applicant failed to communicate with the Tribunal or comply with Rules 16 and 17 regarding the filing of witness lists and documents.

After failing to respond to a Case Assessment Direction warning of potential dismissal, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that her union and its counsel discriminated against her on the basis of disability and engaged in reprisal by failing to adequately represent her in a grievance proceeding.

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

Finding that the applicant's complaints amounted to general dissatisfaction with the union's representation without any evidence linking the union's conduct to her disability or a reprisal, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging her employment was terminated because of her pregnancy.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant had a parallel claim at the Ministry of Labour.

The applicant submitted that her Ministry of Labour claim only concerned pay in lieu of notice under the Employment Standards Act, not the reason for her termination.

The Tribunal found no risk of inconsistent decisions and directed that the processing of the application not be deferred.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on ancestry and place of origin.

He claimed he was discriminatorily denied a service worker position in 2005 and subsequently placed in an unfair wage structure in 2007.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to address timeliness and reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the 2005 refusal allegation for delay, finding the six-year delay was not incurred in good faith despite ongoing union negotiations.

The Tribunal also dismissed the unfair wage allegation, finding no reasonable prospect that the applicant could link his rate of pay to his ancestry or place of origin.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal and discrimination based on disability, which was deferred pending grievance proceedings.

After the grievance process concluded, the applicant requested to reactivate the application and remove the corporate respondent, while the respondents requested dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal granted the request to reactivate because the grievance process was complete, and directed that the requests to remove the corporate respondent and dismiss the application be addressed at a future teleconference hearing.