Mary Truemner

The applicant alleged reprisal after his employment was terminated shortly after he reported sexual harassment complaints made by two of his staff members.

The Tribunal considered whether to consolidate his application with the sexual harassment applications of the two staff members, and whether to order the disclosure of various documents.

The Tribunal declined to consolidate the applications, finding that the applicant's reprisal claim involved different facts and issues than the sexual harassment claims.

The Tribunal also ordered the respondent to provide an explanation and documents regarding the applicant's allegedly deficient sales targets, but denied the requests for the alleged harasser's resume and the internal investigation report at this stage.

The applicants filed human rights applications alleging sexual harassment and reprisal against their employer.

The Tribunal considered whether to consolidate their applications with a third application filed by a former coworker who alleged his employment was terminated for reporting their complaints.

The Tribunal declined to consolidate the applications, finding that the third application involved divergent issues focusing on employment performance and reprisal, whereas the applicants' hearing would focus on whether the sexual harassment occurred.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on ethnic origin.

One day prior to the continuation of the hearing, the applicant filed a request to withdraw the application.

The respondent opposed the request, arguing it was filed on the eve of the hearing and constituted an abuse of process.

The Tribunal granted the request to withdraw, noting that no evidence had yet been adduced and the applicant had made clear his intention not to appear.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that the respondent public housing landlord refused to transfer her away from an abusive tenant because it perceived her to have a mental disability.

The respondent requested dismissal under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter was already decided by the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB).

The Tribunal found that the LTB had previously dismissed three applications by the applicant regarding the same facts, finding no harassment occurred and that the landlord had reasonably attempted to assist her.

Applying the Figliola principles, the Tribunal held that the LTB had appropriately dealt with the substance of the disability discrimination allegation, making it impossible for the human rights application to succeed.

The disability allegation was dismissed, with directions given regarding the remaining reprisal and association claims.

The applicant requested reconsideration of an interim decision that dismissed her allegations of discrimination based on race, place of origin, ethnic origin, and age.

The applicant's representative missed a teleconference hearing, leading to the dismissal of some allegations as abandoned.

The reconsideration request was filed past the 30-day deadline.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding no good faith reason for the delay and concluding that the newly alleged evidence (a supervisor's comment about Iran) was not determinative and could have reasonably been obtained earlier.

The respondent requested an order to dismiss the human rights application for abuse of process after the self-represented applicant failed to meet deadlines to provide particulars regarding alleged discriminatory remarks.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application, finding that the respondent had sufficient notice of the core allegations and that any prejudice could be addressed through an adjournment or by restricting the applicant's evidence at the hearing.

The applicant was granted a final five-day extension to file the required particulars.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability.

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

After the applicant failed to attend the initial hearing, it was rescheduled.

The applicant confirmed his awareness of the rescheduled date but failed to attend again.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed as abandoned.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned, emphasizing the obligation of parties to respect the process and comply with the Tribunal's Rules.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of ethnic origin, disability, and association, as well as reprisal.

After the main allegations regarding termination were dismissed in previous interim decisions, the respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to dismiss the remaining allegations as out of time.

The applicant failed to respond to the respondents' Request and a subsequent Case Assessment Direction.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The corporate respondent requested an order to remove the personal respondent, a Team Member Relations Specialist, from the human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability.

Applying the factors from Persaud, the Tribunal found that the corporate respondent accepted potential liability, could remedy any proven complaints, and there was no compelling reason to continue against the personal respondent who acted in the course of her duties.

The request was granted and the personal respondent was removed.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision proposing to consolidate three human rights applications against the same corporate respondent, Paris Jewellers Ltd., alleging reprisal in employment.

Two of the applications had already been consolidated.

The Tribunal directed the parties to notify it within two weeks if they objected to consolidating and hearing all three applications together on the scheduled hearing dates.

The applicants failed to appear at a scheduled case management conference call.

The respondent requested that the applications be dismissed as abandoned.

The Tribunal found that while the applicants' mother was aware of the date and time of the call, she may not have received the notice containing the connection instructions due to a mailing error.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the applications as abandoned but ordered the applicants to confirm their intention to proceed within 14 days.

The applicant filed an Application alleging reprisal with respect to services after the respondent denied his application for a firearms license renewal.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the Application failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination or reprisal within the meaning of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant did not provide submissions in response.

The Tribunal dismissed the Application, finding it plain and obvious that the matter was beyond its jurisdiction.

The respondents requested an adjournment of a scheduled human rights hearing because a witness was unavailable due to prior family commitments.

The applicant opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, noting the request was made six months after the hearing notice and outside the 14-day window permitted by the Tribunal's Practice Direction.

The respondents failed to provide sufficient details or demonstrate extraordinary circumstances to justify the late adjournment request.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking early production of her brother's employee file prior to mediation.

The respondent opposed the request, arguing that early disclosure is only ordered in exceptional circumstances.

The Tribunal found that the belief that mediation would be more effective with the file was not an exceptional circumstance justifying early production.

The request was denied as premature.

The parties requested a last-minute adjournment on consent, advising the Tribunal that they had reached a settlement in principle.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting its practice direction discourages adjournments for settlement discussions and that if terms were agreed upon, signatures could be obtained quickly.

The parties were directed to file a Form 25 or attend the hearing prepared for mediation-adjudication.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of disability, claiming he was terminated after sustaining injuries.

The respondent requested early dismissal under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, arguing the application was barred by a civil proceeding recently commenced by the applicant.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's civil action for wrongful dismissal sought damages arising out of the same alleged discrimination.

As the remedies sought in the civil claim included remedies with respect to the infringement of Code rights, the Tribunal dismissed the application to prevent duplicative litigation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on family status.

The union representing the applicant's bargaining unit requested to intervene to address remedial issues affecting the collective agreement and its members' rights.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene, noting its general practice of granting intervention status to a union representing the applicant's bargaining unit absent exceptional circumstances.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code alleging discrimination in the termination of his employment.

The applicant's union had concurrently filed a grievance regarding the same termination.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the resolution of the grievance.

The applicant opposed deferral due to anticipated delays, while the respondents supported it.

The Tribunal deferred the application, noting that the facts and issues overlapped significantly and that grievance arbitrators have the responsibility to enforce human rights obligations, making deferral appropriate to avoid inconsistent decisions.

The applicant requested a last-minute adjournment of a scheduled two-day hearing on consent, stating the parties had reached a settlement in principle and needed time to complete paperwork.

The Tribunal partially granted the request, adjourning the hearing only until the afternoon of the first scheduled day.

The Tribunal noted its policy against adjourning hearings for settlement discussions absent exceptional circumstances.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of place of origin against a law firm operating in British Columbia.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the alleged events took place outside of Ontario.

The Tribunal found that it lacks jurisdiction over the matter as the Human Rights Code is provincial legislation limited to acts committed within Ontario.

The application was dismissed.