Mary Truemner

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing on the basis of race, ethnic origin, sexual solicitation or advances, and reprisal by his condominium corporation.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed at a summary hearing for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations of sexual solicitation and reprisal, finding no evidence to support them.

However, the Tribunal allowed the allegations of discrimination based on race and ethnic origin to proceed, ordering the applicant to provide further particulars regarding alleged racial slurs and a 'black list' used by the condominium board chairman.

The applicant filed a human rights application against her vocational association (ALOC), its former president, and its legal counsel (SGM), alleging discrimination.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for delay, as the application was filed more than one year after the last incidents involving the former president and legal counsel.

The Tribunal found no good faith explanation for the delay and dismissed the application against those two respondents.

However, the Tribunal allowed the application to proceed against ALOC solely regarding its ongoing communications with the employer and its continued delay in proceeding with the applicant's grievance, as these arguably occurred within the one-year limitation period.

The applicant, a mature university student, alleged discrimination on the basis of age, creed, race, and ethnic origin, as well as reprisal, against the university and several staff members.

The allegations stemmed from academic disputes, timetable issues, and a subsequent campus ban following the applicant's disruptive behaviour.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application in its entirety, finding no reasonable prospect that the applicant could link the respondents' conduct to any prohibited ground or establish an intention to reprise.

The applicant, a lawyer employed by the Ministry of the Attorney General, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to be filed outside the one-year limitation period.

The Tribunal found that allegations relating to the applicant's time at the Family Responsibility Office were out of time and the delay was not incurred in good faith, as the applicant had retained counsel and identified the alleged contraventions well before the deadline.

However, allegations regarding communications about a new secondment in September and October 2010 were within the one-year limitation period and were allowed to proceed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, race, place of origin, ethnic origin, creed, and age.

The respondents requested deferral or early dismissal of the application, arguing that the WSIB had already dealt with the substance of the disability allegations.

The Tribunal denied the deferral request as the applicant was not appealing the WSIB decision, and dismissed the section 45.1 request because the WSIB did not address the human rights issues of discrimination and accommodation.

The Tribunal dismissed the age discrimination allegation for lack of particulars and ordered the applicant to provide further details regarding the allegations based on race, ethnic origin, and place of origin.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination and psychological harassment by a co-worker.

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

The applicant conceded she had no evidence linking the alleged mistreatment to her age or any other prohibited ground under the Human Rights Code, believing instead it was because she was a new employee.

Finding no reasonable prospect that the applicant could prove a Code violation, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The applicant's counsel faxed a letter to the Tribunal advising that the parties had reached a settlement and requesting an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for the following day.

Neither party appeared at the scheduled hearing.

The Tribunal noted that the parties ought to have attended to speak to the adjournment request, but granted the adjournment and directed the parties to advise on the status of the application or provide dates for rescheduling.

The applicant requested an adjournment of her human rights application hearing due to illness, providing medical documentation.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment and directed the applicant to comply with previous directions regarding document and witness disclosure.

Additionally, the Tribunal added Living Waters Residence Inc. as a respondent on consent.

The applicant filed a human rights application that involved the same facts and issues as two ongoing union grievances.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer.

The respondent supported deferral, while the applicant opposed it due to uncertainty over union representation.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process, noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority to enforce human rights obligations.

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

She brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings to add Tobmar Investments Inc. as a respondent, alleging she was ordered to leave its store because her wheelchair was too big.

The Tribunal applied the test for adding a respondent and granted the request, finding the allegations could support a Code violation and there was no unfairness in adding the respondent at this early stage.

The applicant requested to re-activate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the resolution of related grievance proceedings.

The applicant's counsel confirmed that the grievances had been withdrawn and terminated without arbitration or mediation.

As the respondent did not refute this information, the Tribunal granted the request and re-activated the application, directing the respondent to indicate whether it wished to attempt mediation.

The applicant filed a request to amend her human rights application to increase the financial remedy and general damages sought.

The respondent opposed the request on the basis that the applicant could have calculated her lost wages earlier, but did not claim any prejudice.

The Tribunal applied the factors for amending complaints and granted the request, noting the absence of prejudice to the respondent and that granting the amendment does not reflect on the likelihood of the remedy being awarded.

The applicant filed a request for reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application alleging discrimination in the refusal of an engineering licence.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that it was filed past the 30-day deadline and that the applicant failed to establish any of the threshold criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5, such as new determinative evidence or a conflict with established jurisprudence.

The applicants, who are seniors living in a retirement park, filed human rights applications alleging discrimination on the basis of age, disability, and association, as well as reprisal, regarding the construction of their home and the respondents' construction activities in their neighbourhood.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicants' complaints related to customer protection and contracts, and there was no evidence linking the respondents' conduct to any prohibited ground of discrimination or reprisal under the Code.

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

The applicant in a human rights proceeding alleging pregnancy discrimination filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking the production of various documents.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for an order compelling the respondent to confirm its efforts to retrieve documents relating to the applicant, finding no basis to conclude documents were withheld.

The Tribunal granted the request for documents relating to the hiring and firing of certain employees, ordering the respondent to produce them or confirm they do not exist.

The Tribunal declined to order the respondent to provide a summary of how the applicant's duties were redistributed, noting this could be explored through cross-examination at the hearing.

The applicant sought to amend her human rights application to specify damages for lost wages, and the respondents requested that the application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing its substance was dealt with in a prior proceeding involving the applicant's son.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, finding no prejudice to the respondents.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss, finding that the prior proceeding dealt with discrimination against the son based on disability, whereas this application concerns discrimination against the applicant based on family status and association.

The applicant alleged discrimination in services on the basis of sex by the OPP and Crown Attorney respondents regarding their handling of domestic disputes with his former girlfriend.

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

The applicant conceded the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction over the Crown Attorney respondents due to prosecutorial immunity.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the OPP respondents, finding no reasonable prospect that the applicant could establish a link between the alleged differential treatment and his gender.

The respondents brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings to remove four personal respondents from a human rights application alleging discrimination based on race and family status.

The Tribunal applied the Persaud factors and removed three of the personal respondents, finding their individual conduct was not a central issue and they were named merely due to their managerial positions.

However, the Tribunal declined to remove the Director of Sales, as the applicant specifically alleged that he treated the applicant differently than white co-workers when granting accommodations, making his conduct a potentially central issue.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex, claiming she was terminated due to pregnancy.

She brought a Request for Order During Proceedings to amend her application to explicitly check the 'In being fired' box and to add claims for $25,000 in general damages and special damages for lost wages.

The respondents opposed the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the amendments were reasonably connected to the original allegations, would not prejudice the respondents, and would not prolong the hearing.

The applicant, a civilian member of the Toronto Police Service, was terminated after being charged with sexual exploitation of a minor.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of age, marital status, and disability against both the employer and the union after the union withdrew his grievance.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the human rights applications pending the conclusion of the criminal proceedings.

Finding overlap in facts and issues, the Tribunal ordered the applications deferred.