Mary Truemner

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

At the commencement of the hearing, the applicant requested to amend the respondents' names and add an allegation that the respondents demanded 12 months' rent in advance because he was a newcomer to Canada.

The respondents consented to the amendments.

The parties then jointly requested an adjournment because the respondents' counsel had not received the request in time to review the new evidence with his clients.

The Tribunal granted the amendments and the adjournment, and issued directions for the filing of amended pleadings and documents.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application alleging discrimination by the respondent.

The applicant argued there were new facts, the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence, and other factors outweighed the finality of the decision.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to meet the threshold criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26, as the new evidence could not be determinative, there was no conflict with jurisprudence, and no other factors justified reopening the case.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

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

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed the respondents' request for further particulars and the applicant's request for document disclosure.

The Tribunal refused the respondents' request to dismiss the allegations for lack of particulars, but ordered the applicant to provide specific details regarding her accommodation requests and the alleged harassment based on creed.

The Tribunal also partially granted the applicant's request for disclosure, ordering the respondents to provide information about general labourers and cold room duties in 2009, while denying requests for documents related to earlier injuries and cold room safety as irrelevant.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal after the respondent confiscated his driver's licence and banned him from its gaming facilities following an alleged assault.

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

The applicant argued the delay was in good faith because he was waiting for the conclusion of a related Superior Court proceeding.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that pursuing other legal avenues or waiting for another proceeding to conclude does not constitute a good faith reason for delay under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination and reprisal.

Prior to the issuance of a Notice of Hearing, the applicant filed requests for interim orders to restrain the respondent from damaging his career and to compel early production of documents.

The Tribunal denied the request for a restraining order, finding no evidence that the respondent had made negative statements to outside parties or affected the applicant's employment endeavours.

The Tribunal also denied the request for early document production as premature, noting that the applicant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying production before the standard procedural trigger.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on age and sex regarding a report prepared by the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) during a child custody dispute.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed on the basis of absolute privilege.

The Tribunal held that the OCL report was created and filed in the course of judicial proceedings, triggering the common law doctrine of absolute privilege.

Consequently, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to deal with the application, and it was dismissed.

The respondents requested that the human rights application be dismissed or deferred under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the applicant had commenced a parallel civil proceeding.

The Tribunal found that the civil proceeding was a negligence claim for a slip and fall, with no overlapping human rights facts or remedies sought.

The Tribunal also denied the respondents' request for early production of the applicant's medical records, finding it premature as the Notice of Hearing had not yet been issued.

The respondents' Request for Order During Proceedings was denied.

The applicant alleged discrimination in services on the basis of ethnic origin, ancestry, and place of origin.

He claimed that during a telephone conversation regarding a property standards order and a denied grant application, the respondent's Director of Planning called him a Nazi and told him to return to Germany after he threatened to paint a swastika on his house.

He also alleged that the respondent's mayor and councillors failed to investigate his subsequent complaints about the comment.

The Tribunal conducted a detailed credibility assessment of the conflicting witness testimonies and concluded that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the discriminatory comment was made.

The Tribunal also found that the applicant did not communicate a complaint of discrimination to the mayor or councillors that would trigger a duty to investigate.

The application was dismissed.

The parties requested an adjournment on the first day of a scheduled two-day hearing because they had reached a settlement in principle, but finalizing it was delayed due to the hospitalization of the respondent's instructing client.

The Tribunal granted a one-day adjournment, ordering that if a settlement form was not filed by the end of the day, the hearing would proceed the following day with mediation-adjudication in the morning and testimony in the afternoon.

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

On the scheduled hearing date, the applicant's representative requested an adjournment due to a family emergency, which the respondents agreed to and the Tribunal granted.

The Tribunal also issued directions for the parties to file Requests for Orders During Proceedings regarding further disclosure and particulars.

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

The respondent failed to comply with a previous interim decision directing it to provide witness statements regarding its 'credit criteria' and to confirm its legal name.

Following a teleconference hearing, the Tribunal ordered the respondent to provide its legal name, disclose all documents relevant to its credit criteria, and amend its witness statements within 14 days, warning that failure to comply could result in evidentiary restrictions at the hearing.

The applicant, a student, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in services based on disability and reprisal by the respondent college.

The applicant requested an interim remedy seeking immediate compensation for tuition, housing, and allowance, as well as reinstatement of his education.

The Tribunal denied the interim remedy request, finding that the balance of harm or convenience did not favour granting it and that it was not just or appropriate in the circumstances.

The Tribunal granted a request for a summary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the applicant's human rights application pending the outcome of a recently filed grievance.

The Tribunal reviewed the subject matter of both proceedings and found no overlap in the facts.

The grievance concerned a denial of a temporary assignment based on marital status, whereas the application alleged discrimination based on sex, marital, and family status related to a different temporary position and maternity leaves.

The request for deferral was denied, and directions were given for mediation or a preliminary hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal and discrimination in employment due to his association with a transgendered colleague.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant had an ongoing grievance dealing with the same facts.

Despite the applicant's opposition based on concerns about delay and union representation, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance proceeding, noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority to decide human rights claims.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and failure to accommodate with respect to employment because of disability, as well as termination due to disability.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant had an ongoing WSIB proceeding.

The applicant argued that the WSIB proceeding dealt with ongoing entitlement for a low back injury and recognition of permanent impairment, which were unrelated to the human rights allegations of harassment, failure to accommodate, and discriminatory termination.

The Tribunal agreed that the WSIB proceedings raised issues unrelated to the human rights application and declined to defer the matter.

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

She brought a Request for Order During Proceedings to amend the remedies sought in her application and to add the Centre for Rational Learning Inc. as a respondent, arguing it was interrelated with her employer, Haydon Youth Services Inc. The Tribunal granted the request to amend the remedies, noting the passage of time since the application was filed.

The Tribunal also granted the request to add the Centre as a respondent, finding no prejudice to the respondents and noting the interrelated nature of the two corporations.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability and sex (pregnancy), claiming the respondent employer denied her accommodation requests, which prevented her from working the hours required for maternity leave.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer pending the completion of a related WSIB process.

The applicant opposed deferral, noting her WSIB issues were largely resolved, except for an unrelated chronic pain appeal.

In the absence of submissions from the respondent, the Tribunal declined to defer the application and directed the respondent to file its response.

The applicant, who uses a wheelchair, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability following the respondent's cancellation of passenger train service in Northern Ontario.

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

At the hearing, the applicant withdrew the allegation that the cancellation itself was discriminatory, focusing instead on the inaccessibility of the replacement bus service.

The Tribunal found that the bus inaccessibility allegation was present in the original application and had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal permitted the applicant to amend the application to clarify these allegations.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination regarding the termination of her employment.

A concurrent union grievance proceeding was also in progress concerning the same termination.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer, to which no parties responded.

The Tribunal ordered the application deferred pending the resolution of the grievance to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal in employment after the respondent employers refused to hire her for a greeter position.

The respondents requested deferral of the application pending the outcome of a union grievance dealing with the same facts.

The applicant's union requested intervenor status.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene, noting its interest in the outcome and the lack of opposition.

The Tribunal also deferred the application to avoid inconsistent decisions, as the grievance and the application significantly overlapped in facts and issues.