Mary Truemner

The applicant, a hair stylist, quit her job at the respondents' salon to move to Florida.

When the new job did not work out, she contacted the respondents to ask for her job back and disclosed that she was pregnant.

The respondents refused to rehire her.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment based on sex and disability.

The Tribunal found that while there may have been clientele issues, it was more probable than not that the applicant's pregnancy and anticipated maternity leave were contributing factors in the respondents' decision not to rehire her.

The Tribunal concluded that the respondents infringed the applicant's right to equal treatment in employment without discrimination because of sex.

The respondents were ordered to pay $10,000 as compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment more than one year after his termination.

A Notice of Intent to Dismiss was issued, but the applicant failed to provide submissions explaining the delay.

The applicant claimed he thought he had waived his rights by signing a document upon termination.

The Tribunal held that ignorance of one's rights does not amount to good faith delay unless the applicant establishes they had no reason to make inquiries.

The application was dismissed as out of time.

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

The respondent employer requested that the application be deferred pending the outcome of the applicant's duty of fair representation complaint against his union before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The union also requested intervenor status.

The Tribunal granted the union intervenor status but declined to defer the application, finding that the legal issues and framework in the human rights application were distinct from the labour relations proceeding.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondents.

The personal 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 July 29, 2010, along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice to him and deem him to have accepted the allegations.

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

The facts of the application were part of an ongoing union grievance proceeding.

Both parties agreed that deferral was appropriate.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal and discrimination in employment approximately 15 months after his last day of work.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed for delay.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's ignorance of his rights and how to contact the Tribunal did not constitute a good faith reason for the delay, as he provided no reason why he was unable to inquire about his rights earlier.

The application was dismissed.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss against certain personal respondents, questioning its jurisdiction.

After reviewing the applicant's submissions, which clarified the named respondents and detailed allegations of harassment and constructive dismissal by the personal respondents, the Tribunal concluded it was not plain and obvious that it lacked jurisdiction.

The Tribunal directed that the application continue to be processed and served on all named respondents.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination on the basis of race, colour, and ancestry approximately 19 months after the last alleged incident.

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

The applicant claimed ignorance of the Tribunal's existence but provided no submissions explaining why inquiries were not made earlier.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to establish that the delay was incurred in good faith and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondents.

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

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondents to file a Response by June 16, 2010, along with an explanation for the delay, warning that failure to do so could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming the respondents to have accepted the allegations under Rule 5.5.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application because the facts were part of an ongoing union grievance.

The union and respondents supported deferral, while the applicant did not respond.

The Tribunal deferred the application, finding a significant overlap of facts and issues, and noting that grievance arbitrators have the responsibility to enforce the Human Rights Code.

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

The respondents failed to file a Response within the required 35-day period after the Notice of Application was issued.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondents of the consequences of failing to participate, including the possibility of the Tribunal proceeding without them and deeming them to have accepted the allegations.

The respondents were granted a final opportunity to file a Response by June 21, 2010, along with an explanation for the delay.

The applicant filed a human rights application which was deferred pending the conclusion of a union grievance.

After the grievance concluded, the Tribunal directed the applicant to indicate whether he wished to reactivate or withdraw the application.

The applicant failed to respond to the direction.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant, a 10-year-old boy with Asperger's Syndrome, alleged discrimination in services on the basis of disability after the respondent municipality refused to allow him to attend a summer day camp unless accompanied by an inclusion facilitator, which they only provided for two weeks of the nine-week program.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario found that the respondents breached the Human Rights Code by failing to accommodate the applicant's disability to the point of undue hardship.

The respondents did not demonstrate that providing a facilitator for the full summer would cause undue hardship, nor did they explore alternative accommodations.

The Tribunal awarded $12,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, $173.35 for out-of-pocket expenses, and ordered the municipality to retain a consultant to review its policies regarding the accommodation of children with disabilities.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal after receiving a trespass letter from the respondent school board, delivered by a police officer.

The applicant requested to add the police officer and the police service as respondents.

The Tribunal dismissed the request to add parties because there was no allegation that the proposed respondents intended to reprise.

The respondents requested early dismissal of the application, arguing it was barred by previous proceedings.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for early dismissal, finding that the previous decision did not substantively address the reprisal allegations.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of association and reprisal, claiming she was punished for emailing a political opponent of a City Councillor using her work computer.

The Tribunal requested submissions to establish a connection between the alleged conduct and a prohibited ground under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant alleged sexual harassment based on a profane comment made by the Councillor about the political opponent.

The Tribunal found the comment did not constitute sex discrimination and that the applicant failed to link the alleged reprisal to the enforcement of Code rights.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant sought to amend her human rights application against a social housing provider regarding its identification requirements.

The Tribunal granted the request to remove the ground of receipt of public assistance on consent.

The Tribunal also granted the contested request to amend the application to allege discrimination on the basis of place of origin rather than citizenship, finding that the narrative supported the amendment and any prejudice to the respondent could be remedied by allowing it to amend its response.

The applicant filed human rights applications alleging failure to accommodate a work-related injury.

The respondent school board requested that the applications be deferred under s. 45 of the Human Rights Code because the issues were currently before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Tribunal (WSIAT) on appeal.

The Tribunal found sufficient overlap in the factual issues and concluded that deferring the applications pending the WSIAT outcome was the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw her human rights application.

The respondents consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted leave to withdraw the application and cancelled the scheduled hearing.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be deferred because the applicant filed a new grievance regarding the same alleged discrimination.

The applicant consented to the deferral.

The Tribunal granted the request and deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance arbitration process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging racial discrimination by a police officer during a traffic stop.

The applicant had also filed a complaint with the Toronto Police Service, which decided to take no further action, and the applicant requested a review by the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services (OCCPS).

The Tribunal, on its own initiative, deferred the application pending the conclusion of the OCCPS review to avoid concurrent proceedings dealing with the same facts and issues.