Mary Truemner

The respondent requested to defer the human rights application alleging disability discrimination pending the completion of an ongoing grievance proceeding filed by the applicant's union.

The applicant did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting its general practice of deferring applications where there is an ongoing grievance under a collective agreement based on the same facts and human rights issues, as grievance arbitrators have the power and responsibility to enforce human rights obligations.

The applicant sought to amend his human rights application to add an allegation of reprisal, claiming the respondent interfered with his short-term disability benefits waiting period.

The Tribunal had previously directed the applicant to provide submissions detailing evidence of the respondent's intention to reprise and connection to the benefits provider's decision.

The applicant failed to file the requested submissions.

The Tribunal declined to exercise its discretion to permit the amendment, finding it would be unfair to the respondent given the lack of a reasonable prospect of success and the substantial expansion of the application's subject matter.

The request to amend was denied.

The applicant filed human rights applications alleging discrimination on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, sex, and reprisal.

Following interim decisions that dismissed parts of the applications due to delay, a summary hearing was convened to determine if the remaining aspects had a reasonable prospect of success.

During the hearing, the applicant requested to withdraw the remaining parts of her applications.

The Province did not oppose the withdrawal, while the Association of Law Officers of the Crown opposed it.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to withdraw the applications, noting that no responses had been filed and no prejudice was established.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination because of disability with respect to employment.

The respondents requested to defer the application pending the completion of ongoing grievance proceedings filed by the applicant's union based on the same facts.

As the applicant did not oppose the request and the grievance proceedings involved the same human rights issues, the Tribunal granted the request and deferred the application.

The applicant filed a request for reconsideration of a previous decision that dismissed his human rights application against the police.

The applicant argued the decision conflicted with established case law and that other factors outweighed the public interest in finality, but failed to provide supporting jurisprudence or articulate those factors.

The Tribunal found the request was an attempt to re-argue the case and appeal the findings of fact.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

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

The respondents requested early dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that a prior grievance arbitration had appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal found that the arbitrator had addressed the facts underlying the ethnic origin claim and dismissed that portion of the application.

However, the Tribunal ordered a summary hearing to determine if the remaining allegations regarding disability, association, and reprisal had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination more than two years after the last alleged incident, and more than one year after a previous application was dismissed for being filed under the wrong section of the Code.

The applicant argued the delay was in good faith due to mental health issues and time spent in Thailand.

The Tribunal found the delay was not incurred in good faith, noting the applicant's ability to travel and file electronically, and dismissed the application for being outside the one-year limitation period.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of race, colour, place of origin, citizenship, and ethnic origin by police officers and jail wardens following his arrest for domestic assault.

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

The applicant's only evidence of discrimination was a police officer's notebook entry describing suspects in an unrelated incident as 'pakistani/indian'.

The Tribunal found this insufficient to link the respondents' actions to the alleged grounds and dismissed the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

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

The respondent requested early dismissal on the basis that the matter was already dealt with through a grievance proceeding and settlement.

The applicant's former union filed a Request to Intervene to address evidence regarding its conduct during the grievance process, as the applicant alleged she did not understand the settlement due to a language barrier.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene for the purposes of the preliminary hearing on whether the matter had been dealt with.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application following a summary hearing.

He argued that new evidence, including an internal investigation report and emails, proved his allegations of discrimination and reprisal, and that the summary dismissal conflicted with established jurisprudence.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the evidence was available at the time of the summary hearing and was not determinative, and that the summary hearing procedure was correctly applied.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to contracts on the basis of disability.

The Tribunal scheduled a summary hearing to determine if there was a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to appear at the summary hearing, despite receiving notice and a direction that her attendance was required.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed as abandoned.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned due to the applicant's failure to attend.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because her medications left her unable to focus or concentrate, preventing her counsel from preparing her.

The respondent objected on the basis of thrown away costs.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, noting that illness constitutes extraordinary circumstances under its Practice Direction, and scheduled a conference call to receive medical updates.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on sex (pregnancy), claiming the respondents failed to accommodate her and terminated her employment.

The respondents requested early dismissal, arguing the issues were resolved in a prior Employment Standards Act (ESA) settlement regarding her termination.

The Tribunal dismissed the termination portion of the application on consent, as it was covered by the ESA settlement.

However, the Tribunal allowed the failure to accommodate claim to proceed, finding that the ESA settlement release was limited to the termination issue and did not cover the respondents' alleged failure to accommodate the applicant while she was working.

The applicants, who are elderly and disabled, filed human rights applications alleging that the respondent County discriminated against them and engaged in reprisals by failing to enforce by-laws against a housing developer.

The Tribunal directed a summary hearing in writing to determine if the applications had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicants failed to provide any evidence linking the County's alleged failure to enforce its by-laws to the applicants' age, disability, or any assertion of their human rights.

The applications were dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicants requested a reconsideration of a decision dismissing their human rights applications against the respondents, who were constructing homes in their neighbourhood.

The applicants alleged discrimination and reprisal based on age and disability, citing construction nuisances and elder abuse.

The Tribunal found that the applicants failed to provide new evidence or demonstrate that the original decision conflicted with established jurisprudence or procedure.

The request for reconsideration was denied as the applicants did not meet the criteria under Rule 25.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant alleged that the respondent discriminated against her on the basis of race, colour, and ethnic origin when it failed to hire her for a cashier position.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant argued that she was denied an interview after management saw she was black, and noted a lack of black staff at the respondent's store.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had established a potential link between the denial of employment and the prohibited grounds, and therefore declined to dismiss the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability after the Ministry of Transportation downgraded his commercial driver's licence due to a heart condition.

The applicant had previously filed an identical application in 2008, which was dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code because the Licence Appeal Tribunal had already appropriately dealt with the substance of the matter.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the current application was barred by res judicata.

Finding that the same issues were raised, the previous decision was final, and the parties were identical, the Tribunal dismissed the application as barred by the doctrine of res judicata.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed or adjourned because the applicant failed to file adequate witness statements in compliance with the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss, ordering that the hearing proceed and the applicant be permitted to testify.

However, the Tribunal directed the applicant to file amended witness statements for her other witnesses by a strict deadline, failing which she may not be permitted to adduce their evidence.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability regarding the respondent's handling of his insurance claim and denial of benefits.

A summary hearing was scheduled to assess whether the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

At the hearing, the respondent advised that the applicant's benefits had been retroactively reinstated based on new medical information.

The applicant subsequently requested to withdraw his application, which the Tribunal granted with the respondent's consent.

The applicant filed a human rights application against his condominium corporation and its property manager, alleging discrimination on multiple grounds including race, age, disability, and reprisal.

The respondents requested summary dismissal.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and found that the applicant's allegations, which primarily stemmed from his belief that he was treated poorly after criticizing the property manager, lacked any evidence linking the treatment to Code-protected grounds.

The Tribunal dismissed the application under Rule 19A.1 as having no reasonable prospect of success.