Mary Truemner

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

The respondent failed to file a Response despite receiving multiple notices and an interim decision directing it to do so.

Pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal deemed the respondent to have accepted all allegations in the application and waived its right to participate in the proceedings.

The matter will proceed to a hearing to determine the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination culminating in his termination.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application because a union grievance regarding the termination was already proceeding to arbitration.

The respondents supported deferral, noting substantial overlap between the proceedings.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process, consistent with its normal approach to concurrent legal proceedings involving the same human rights issues.

The applicant requested a last-minute adjournment of her human rights hearing, claiming she mistakenly believed the matter would settle and was unprepared.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that hoping for a settlement is not an exceptional circumstance justifying an adjournment under its Practice Direction.

When the applicant subsequently failed to attend the scheduled hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the ground of disability.

Shortly before the scheduled hearing, the applicant requested an adjournment.

The Tribunal denied the request, stating that reasons would follow, and ordered the hearing to proceed as scheduled.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because of the recent passing of his mother, rendering him emotionally unable to proceed.

The respondents consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment and directed the parties to provide mutually agreed upon new hearing dates.

The applicant, a former resident of a women's shelter, alleged discrimination based on race, colour, and place of origin regarding various incidents at the shelter, including pressure to change her children's school, denial of supplies, comments about her baby, and refusal of entry after she moved out.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and found no reasonable prospect that the applicant could prove a link between the respondent's actions and the prohibited grounds.

The Tribunal also denied the applicant's request to amend her application to add a reprisal claim, finding no reasonable prospect of success.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a Black woman from the Democratic Republic of Congo, alleged that her employer discriminated against her on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, and ethnic origin by repeatedly denying her full-time positions in favour of less qualified White candidates.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant had identified specific incidents and proposed evidence that could establish a link between the events and the prohibited grounds.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application and granted the applicant's union full party status to intervene.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application for delay.

The original application was dismissed because it was filed more than a year after the last alleged incident of discrimination, and the Tribunal found the delay was not in good faith.

In his reconsideration request, the applicant provided more details about his medical difficulties and inability to obtain legal advice.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant merely restated arguments already considered and failed to provide new determinative facts or evidence that could not have been obtained earlier.

The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of a decision that dismissed his human rights application as having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant argued that the original decision was wrong and reiterated his claims that his arrest was racially motivated.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to satisfy the requirements of Rule 26.5, noting that reconsideration is not an opportunity to reargue a case or express disagreement with a decision.

The Request for Reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on race and colour after being removed from a student teacher placement and subsequently terminated from a university program.

The application was filed approximately three years after the last alleged incident of discrimination.

The Tribunal found that the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal rejected the applicant's argument that the delay was incurred in good faith due to an ongoing internal university investigation, noting that the applicant failed to act with due diligence.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of place of origin and citizenship, claiming he was denied seniority over a Canadian citizen who started work a week earlier but was hired later.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing under Rule 19A.1 to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

Finding that the applicant had no evidence beyond the circumstantial difference in citizenship to link the seniority decision to a prohibited ground, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The applicant, a former secretary, alleged that her supervisor and part-owner of the corporate respondent sexually harassed her, made sexual advances, and created a poisoned work environment.

The respondents failed to respond to the application, and the matter proceeded as a default hearing.

The Tribunal found that the personal respondent's persistent sexual advances, inappropriate touching, and use of sexually demeaning language constituted discrimination and sexual harassment under the Human Rights Code.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the reprisal allegations, finding insufficient evidence that the applicant's termination or denial of a raise were linked to her refusal of the advances.

The Tribunal awarded the applicant $20,000 in general damages for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because his only witness, a medical doctor, recently lost his wife and was unavailable to prepare or attend.

The respondents did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal found the circumstances exceptional under its Practice Direction and granted the adjournment, directing that the hearing be rescheduled no sooner than April.

The respondent requested an order preventing the applicant from calling witnesses due to the applicant's failure to comply with Rule 17 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, which requires the delivery of a witness list and statements 45 days prior to the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had not complied with the rule, having provided only a chart referencing documents instead of proper witness statements.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to file the required materials within 5 days, failing which he might not be permitted to call witnesses at the upcoming hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race and colour regarding the termination of her employment.

Prior to the application, the applicant's union had grieved the termination, resulting in a settlement where the applicant received $5,000 and signed a release covering any human rights claims related to her employment.

The respondent requested early dismissal of the application.

The Tribunal found that allowing the application to proceed after the applicant had settled the grievance and released the respondent would constitute an abuse of process.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging the respondents failed to accommodate her disability by delaying the installation of a wheelchair lift in her condominium.

The respondents sought to dismiss the application under s. 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, arguing the applicant had already commenced a civil proceeding seeking damages for the same factual allegations.

The Tribunal found that the civil claim, while not explicitly citing the Code, sought damages that could only be characterized as Code-based remedies.

The application was dismissed as being outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction due to the duplicate civil proceeding.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the Royal Bank of Canada and one of its managers.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that banks fall under federal jurisdiction pursuant to s. 91(15) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction over the application.

The Tribunal also noted the applicant had recently been declared a vexatious litigant and denied her informal request to add another party.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that news coverage on the respondent's website was racist.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that the respondent appeared to be a federally-regulated enterprise.

The Tribunal found that the provision of news via the internet constitutes telecommunications, which falls under exclusive federal jurisdiction.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed 11 human rights applications against various respondents, alleging discrimination on the basis of race, ancestry, colour, place of origin, ethnic origin, citizenship, age, and creed.

The allegations primarily concerned the respondents' hosting of events, screening of films, or posting of information on websites that the applicant found offensive or racist.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario held a summary hearing to determine whether the applications had a reasonable prospect of success and whether the applicant should be declared a vexatious litigant.

The Tribunal dismissed all 11 applications, finding that the applicant's allegations, even if true, did not amount to Code violations and lacked any evidence linking the respondents' actions to the alleged prohibited grounds.

Given the applicant's history of filing over 20 unsubstantiated applications, the Tribunal declared her a vexatious litigant and ordered that she must seek leave before filing any future applications.

At the commencement of the hearing, the self-represented applicant requested an adjournment due to sudden illness and hospitalization for food poisoning.

Despite opposition from the respondents' counsel, the Tribunal granted a one-day adjournment.

On the second day, the applicant requested to withdraw the application against the personal respondents and one corporate respondent.

With the consent of the participating respondents, the Tribunal granted the withdrawal, leaving only one corporate respondent in the proceeding.