Mary Truemner

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, sexual harassment, and reprisal.

The respondents requested to defer the application pending the outcome of an ongoing grievance arbitration that dealt with the failure to accommodate the applicant's disability.

The applicant consented to the deferral.

The Tribunal granted the request to defer the application to avoid inconsistent decisions, noting the significant overlap between the facts and issues in the application and the grievance.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the human rights hearing because he had to return to work in the afternoon and could not request additional time off as a new employee.

The respondent opposed the adjournment, arguing prejudice as its witnesses had taken time off work.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, noting that the hearing would have required another day regardless, and ordered the applicant to provide further particulars regarding the alleged discriminatory remarks.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding alleging pregnancy discrimination requested an order to amend her Application to include a request for $15,000 in general damages and public interest remedies.

The respondent did not file a response to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the amendment would not delay the proceedings or prejudice the respondent, as the new remedies were reasonably connected to the original allegations.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing due to a scheduling conflict that arose after the Tribunal mistakenly informed the parties that the file was closed.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment.

The respondent also requested that the application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing it was appropriately dealt with in a prior Employment Standards Act proceeding.

The Tribunal scheduled a half-day conference call to hear submissions on the request for early dismissal.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on several grounds.

A teleconference hearing was scheduled to determine if there was a reasonable prospect of success for the allegations regarding race, place of origin, and ethnic origin.

The applicant and her representative failed to appear at the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had received proper notice and, in the absence of any explanation at the time, deemed the allegations abandoned and dismissed them.

The remaining allegations of discrimination based on disability and creed were scheduled for a separate hearing.

The respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking clarification on whether the applicant alleged that the job description and educational qualifications were discriminatory, and if so, requesting that the applicant's union be added as a respondent.

At the hearing, the self-represented applicant confirmed she was not alleging the educational requirements were discriminatory.

Based on this clarification, the parties agreed the request should be denied and the union not added.

The Tribunal denied the request and directed the matter to be scheduled for a hearing on the merits.

The applicant requested reconsideration of an interim decision that deferred her human rights application pending the outcome of her ongoing Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) claims.

She argued that a newly discovered auditor's report showing WSIB processes are lengthy constituted new evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the interim decision was not a final decision subject to reconsideration under the Rules, and that the WSIB process was still continuing.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment based on marital status and sex (pregnancy) after her employment was terminated.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed.

The Tribunal found the marital status claim had no reasonable prospect of success because the applicant was treated the same regarding shift scheduling before and after her marriage.

The Tribunal dismissed the pregnancy discrimination claim under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, finding that an Employment Standards Officer had already appropriately dealt with the substance of the allegation in a prior proceeding under the Employment Standards Act.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex (pregnancy).

At the scheduled hearing, the respondent failed to appear.

The adjudicator noted that the respondent's representative did not provide a Law Society number and had previously failed to attend mediation or comply with disclosure orders.

Concerned that the respondent was not receiving correspondence, the adjudicator adjourned the hearing on her own motion to ensure the respondent was served directly with the notice of hearing and case assessment direction.

The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of a previous decision that dismissed his human rights application for delay.

The applicant indicated that there were new facts or other factors outweighing the public interest in finality, but failed to provide any detailed reasons, representations, or new evidence in support of his request.

The Tribunal found that the applicant simply disagreed with the original decision and failed to meet the requirements of Rule 26.5.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant in a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex (pregnancy) requested an order for the production of her entire employee file, an adjournment of the hearing, and an extension of time to file her witness list and documents.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for the employee file, finding that the respondent's counsel had confirmed all arguably relevant documents were disclosed and the applicant's mere suspicion of other documents was insufficient.

The Tribunal also denied the adjournment request, noting that the desire for more preparation time does not constitute exceptional circumstances.

Finally, the Tribunal denied the request for an extension of time to file materials and directed the applicant to file them immediately.

The applicant filed an application alleging that the respondent bank lowered his credit limit because of his age.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that banking is a federal matter.

The Tribunal agreed, noting that under s. 91(15) of the Constitution Act, 1867, the federal Parliament has jurisdiction over banking.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and the applicant was directed to pursue his allegations at the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, and ethnic origin.

During a summary hearing held by teleconference to assess whether the application had no reasonable prospect of success, the applicant stated she did not wish to proceed and requested to withdraw the application.

The respondents consented, and the Tribunal granted the request, closing the file.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability, related to an ongoing effort to have her job modified following a workplace injury.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) had appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss because the WSIB proceedings were still ongoing.

However, the Tribunal granted the respondents' request to defer the application pending the outcome of the WSIB matter, as the subject matter and remedies substantially overlapped.

The applicant alleged that his employment was terminated due to discrimination based on ethnic origin, disability, association with co-workers who filed human rights complaints, and reprisal for his role as a Union Steward and Health and Safety Inspector.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations related to the termination, finding no evidence linking the termination to any prohibited ground under the Human Rights Code, and noting that an arbitrator had previously upheld the termination for insubordination.

However, the Tribunal allowed new allegations regarding disability discrimination during the course of employment to proceed to a full hearing.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability.

The applicant requested to remove a personal respondent, to which the respondents consented.

The Tribunal granted the request and amended the style of cause.

The Tribunal also directed the applicant to file submissions regarding the respondents' request to remove all remaining personal respondents.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging failure to accommodate and disability discrimination.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application because the applicant's union had already filed a grievance based on the same facts and human rights issues.

Finding a substantial overlap between the grievance and the application, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed nine of her applications alleging discrimination in services, goods, and facilities on the basis of race and other grounds, and declared her a vexatious litigant.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet any of the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5, as she did not provide new determinative evidence, demonstrate lack of notice, refer to conflicting jurisprudence, or list other factors outweighing the public interest in finality.

The requests for reconsideration were dismissed.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application against a bank for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to present any new facts, evidence, or other grounds required under section 45.7 of the Human Rights Code and Rule 26.5 to justify reconsidering the decision.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing, citing recent retention of counsel, delayed document exchange, and a desire for more time to engage in settlement discussions.

The respondent consented to the request.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding that the parties' reasons did not constitute exceptional circumstances as required by the Tribunal's Practice Direction and jurisprudence.