Mary Truemner

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.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, family status, marital status, age, and reprisal in relation to his employment.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred pending the outcome of a concurrent grievance proceeding regarding the applicant's entitlement to sick leave.

The Tribunal found significant overlap between the facts and issues in the grievance and the disability allegations in the application.

To avoid inconsistent decisions, the Tribunal ordered the application deferred pending the completion of the grievance process.

The applicant filed a human rights application against his former employer, a trucking company.

The respondent requested early dismissal on the basis that it is a federally regulated interprovincial freight carrier and therefore falls outside provincial jurisdiction.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the respondent's business is interprovincial trucking and thus governed by federal law pursuant to s. 92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant, who alleged his employment was terminated in reprisal for reporting sexual harassment, sought production of the respondent's budget, sales, and hours documents for its other stores and for his former store after his departure.

The respondent argued the termination was due to the applicant's failure to meet sales targets and that the requested documents were irrelevant.

The Tribunal found the documents arguably relevant to assessing whether the performance rationale was pretextual, and ordered the respondent to produce the documents for its Southern Ontario stores.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the outcome of related Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) proceedings.

The applicant argued that the WSIB process was lengthy and had denied her Loss of Earnings benefits for a specific period, a decision she was appealing.

The Tribunal denied the request to reactivate, finding that the WSIB proceedings dealing with the same subject matter and remedies were still ongoing, and allowing the application to proceed would result in concurrent legal proceedings.

The applicant alleged discrimination with respect to employment based on race, place of origin, ancestry, ethnic origin, and creed.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application, arguing they were not the applicant's employer and there was no evidence of discrimination.

The Tribunal found that section 5 of the Code is not limited to formal employment relationships and that the applicant's evidence, if proven, could lead to a finding of discrimination.

The request to dismiss the application was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing based on race and disability against the City of Mississauga and his former lawyer.

The applicant claimed he unknowingly bought a house with high voltage underground cables and that the respondents failed to protect him or acted fraudulently.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss and, after reviewing the applicant's submissions, dismissed the application at a preliminary stage because it did not allege any specific acts of discrimination related to a Code ground.

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

A summary hearing was scheduled to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to attend the initial summary hearing and a rescheduled summary hearing.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to update his contact information, including after being incarcerated and subsequently released.

The application was dismissed as abandoned due to the applicant's failure to attend and comply with the Tribunal's Rules.

The applicant, a child with autism, alleged discrimination with respect to services because the respondent paediatrician declined to attend the emergency room to assess her, allegedly stating 'This is what autistic kids do.

They scream.' The respondent requested dismissal under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter was already dealt with by the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

The Tribunal found that the Committee's process constituted a proceeding that appropriately dealt with the substance of the application, as the factual findings made by the Committee precluded a finding of discrimination.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, who has a developmental disability, requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her allegations of an ongoing discriminatory wage differential as out of time.

The Tribunal previously found that the ongoing practice of paying her less than non-disabled employees was not a continuing contravention under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

On reconsideration, the Tribunal found that the ongoing wage differential constituted a series of incidents, making the allegations timely.

The Tribunal granted the request for reconsideration and directed further proceedings to determine the merits and potential remedy.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that her employer failed to accommodate her disability.

The applicant's union, CAW-Canada Local 444, filed a request to intervene in the application.

Neither the applicant nor the respondent opposed the request.

The Tribunal granted the union intervenor status, noting that a union generally has an interest in a human rights application brought by an employee in its bargaining unit alleging discrimination in employment.

The respondent requested an adjournment of a scheduled two-day hearing because its newly retained counsel was unavailable on the hearing dates due to a long-standing trial.

The applicant opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding that retaining counsel after a hearing is scheduled and counsel's subsequent unavailability do not constitute exceptional circumstances justifying an adjournment under the Tribunal's Practice Direction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to services on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, and sex.

The applicant claimed that the respondent, a car distributor, discriminatorily refused to assist him in a dispute with an independent dealership over car repairs.

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

Finding that the respondent's refusal to intervene was reasonably explained by the expiration of the applicant's warranty, and that there was no evidence connecting the refusal to any prohibited ground, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

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

On the scheduled hearing date, the respondent requested an adjournment because its counsel had suddenly become ill.

The applicant consented, and the Tribunal granted the adjournment.

The Tribunal also ordered the respondent to confirm its legal name, as a corporate search revealed the named respondent did not exist.

Finally, noting the respondent's failure to comply with the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure regarding document disclosure and witness lists, the Tribunal ordered the respondent to produce the required documents and provide an explanation for its non-compliance.

The applicant requested to amend her human rights application to add allegations of discrimination based on sex, sexual orientation, sexual harassment, and reprisal.

The respondents consented to adding sex and reprisal but objected to sexual orientation and sexual harassment.

The Tribunal granted the request to add sex and reprisal because the supporting facts were in the original application and there was no prejudice.

The Tribunal denied the request to add sexual orientation and sexual harassment because the facts were unrelated to the original application, the request was made approximately two years after the alleged incidents, and allowing the amendment would prejudice the respondents.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of family status regarding changes to his work schedule and childcare needs.

The respondent requested to defer the application because the applicant's union had already filed a grievance based on identical facts and issues.

The Tribunal found that deferral was warranted to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions, ordering the application deferred pending the conclusion of the grievance process.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of a concurrent grievance process.

The applicant provided evidence that his grievance was settled.

The respondent acknowledged receipt of the request but did not file a response.

The Tribunal granted the request to reactivate the application as the concurrent grievance process had concluded.

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

The Tribunal previously issued an interim decision dismissing the allegation of discrimination based on disability and directed the applicant to confirm whether she wished to proceed with the remaining allegations.

The applicant failed to respond within the directed timeframe.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the facts of the application were part of an ongoing union grievance.

The respondent supported deferral, while the union took no position but acknowledged the overlap in issues.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance proceeding to avoid the possibility of inconsistent decisions.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of record of offences, but later requested to amend the application to add the ground of creed, stating she was terminated because of her religion.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because the applicant had a concurrent claim before the Ministry of Labour for unpaid wages and termination pay.

The Tribunal denied the deferral request, finding that the Ministry claim dealt with unpaid wages under the Employment Standards Act, 2000, while the human rights application challenged the termination itself.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to amend the application to add the ground of creed, noting the request was made early and there was no prejudice to the respondent.