Mary Truemner

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing due to illness, supported by a doctor's letter.

The respondents consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that the applicant's illness constituted extraordinary circumstances under its scheduling guidelines.

The applicant was directed to provide unavailable dates by February 28, 2011, and document disclosure deadlines were extended.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal attempted to deliver the Notice of Application to the respondent by regular mail, but it was returned as undeliverable.

After a second attempt with a new address also failed, the Tribunal issued an interim decision.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide a current, complete, and accurate address for the respondent within 20 days, along with an explanation of the steps taken to verify the address, in accordance with Rule 6.6 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the ground of sex (pregnancy) after being terminated following a request for reduced hours.

Shortly before the hearing, the applicant requested an order to amend the application to add the ground of disability, arguing the requested accommodation could also be characterized as relating to a temporary disability.

The respondents did not file a response.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, finding no indication of prejudice or unfairness given the facts underlying the new ground were already pleaded.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of age, marital status, and ethnic origin after the respondents refused to grant him a professional engineering license.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal found that the applicant provided no evidence linking the denial of his license to any prohibited ground under the Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.

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

A hearing was scheduled, and the applicant was provided with proper notice.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing and did not contact the Tribunal to explain his absence.

The respondent attended and requested that the application be dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the application due to the applicant's failure to appear and provide evidence in support of his allegations.

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

Two of the corporate respondents, Brute Manufacturing Limited and Bangor Metal Corp., failed to file a Response despite a previous Tribunal direction.

The former CEO indicated the companies were insolvent but provided no evidence of formal insolvency proceedings.

The Tribunal deemed the non-responding companies to have waived their rights to participate and ordered the application to proceed without further notice to them.

The applicant filed a human rights application against his employer, Canada Post Corporation, alleging discrimination on the basis of race.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that the respondent is a federally regulated business.

The applicant argued that the respondent operates in Ontario and human rights should not be subject to jurisdictional limits.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that postal service is a federal undertaking under the Constitution Act, 1867, and therefore falls outside the Tribunal's provincial jurisdiction.

The applicant, a letter carrier for Canada Post, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race by his union, the Canadian Union of Postal Workers.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that labour relations in the area of postal service are a federal undertaking pursuant to section 91(5) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

Therefore, the application falls under federal jurisdiction and must be raised under the Canadian Human Rights Act, not the provincial Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested reconsideration of an interim decision that dismissed his request to add a police officer and police service as respondents to his human rights application alleging reprisal.

The applicant argued that submissions filed by the proposed respondents constituted an admission of intent to reprise.

The Tribunal found that the submissions did not admit intent and did not constitute new determinative evidence.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant's request to deem the existing respondents in default for failing to deliver their Response directly to him, as they had filed it with the Tribunal and he suffered no prejudice.

The reconsideration request was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming he was laid off after suffering a heart attack.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application was filed more than one year after the last alleged incident of discrimination.

The applicant failed to provide submissions by the deadline.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex and sexual solicitation against an organizational respondent and an individual respondent.

The organizational respondent confirmed the individual respondent was no longer employed by it.

The Tribunal found that the individual respondent had not received notice of the application and ordered the applicant to provide a current and accurate address for him within 20 days if she wished to proceed against him.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The respondent failed to file a Response within the required 35-day period.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondent to file a Response by a specified deadline, along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal scheduled a mediation, which the applicant failed to attend.

The Tribunal subsequently warned the applicant that failure to respond would result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant did not respond.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability when the respondent failed to recall him after a layoff.

The respondent and the applicant's union requested that the application be deferred pending the outcome of an ongoing grievance proceeding dealing with the same facts.

The Tribunal granted the union intervenor status and deferred the application, noting the significant overlap of facts and issues and the grievance arbitrator's jurisdiction to apply the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal and discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, specifically a failure to accommodate by providing modified work.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the same facts and issues were the subject of an ongoing union grievance.

Despite the applicant's concern that the respondents might object to the arbitrability of the grievance, the Tribunal deferred the application, noting the significant overlap of issues and the grievance arbitrator's jurisdiction to enforce human rights obligations.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding brought a request for an order for the production of documents over which the respondents claimed solicitor-client privilege.

The respondents argued that the documents were confidential communications between the university and its senior legal counsel.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the documents were protected by solicitor-client privilege, which is nearly absolute, and the applicant's assertion that the documents might provide further evidence was not a sufficient reason to pierce the privilege.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The respondents failed to file a response within the required time.

After the applicant provided a new address for one of the respondents, the Tribunal directed that the application be delivered to the new address and granted the respondents an extension to file a response, warning that failure to do so could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and marital status after her Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) benefits were cancelled.

The respondent cancelled the benefits because the applicant's roommate, whom she had previously declared as her spouse, experienced an increase in income.

The respondent brought a request to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the respondent's decision to treat the applicant and her roommate as spouses was based on their own statutory declarations and the application of the ODSPA, and did not raise an arguable claim of discrimination under the Code.

The applicant alleged disability discrimination culminating in his termination by his former employer, Brute Manufacturing Limited.

Brute and its parent company, Bangor Metal Corp., failed to file responses, citing insolvency and CCAA proceedings.

The Tribunal found no active stay of proceedings and ordered them to file responses or face consequences under Rule 5.5.

A numbered company that purchased Brute's assets sought to be removed as a respondent, arguing no prima facie case.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding a significant factual dispute regarding whether the numbered company refused to hire the applicant due to his disability after purchasing the assets.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination because the collective agreement denied her short-term disability benefits after age 65.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, questioning whether the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period.

The applicant submitted that the discrimination was ongoing and pointed to recent health problems requiring surgery, after which she was denied benefits.

The Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the application was out of time and allowed it to proceed.