Mary Truemner

The applicant filed a human rights application and was represented by an unpaid member of an unincorporated housing cooperative alliance.

The Tribunal previously declared the representative a vexatious litigant.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to explain how the representative met the Law Society's exemptions for unlicensed persons.

The Tribunal found that the representative did not fall within the exemption for a volunteer from an appropriate organization, nor the exemption for an unpaid friend, as he was providing legal services in more than three matters per year.

The Tribunal ordered the representative removed.

The applicant filed a human rights application and was represented by an unlicensed individual who claimed to be an unpaid member of an unincorporated housing alliance.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to explain how the representative met the Law Society's exemptions for unlicensed legal service providers.

The Tribunal found that the housing alliance was not an appropriate organization under the Practice Direction and that the representative was acting in more than three matters per year, violating the Law Society's By-Law 4.

The Tribunal ordered the representative removed from the proceeding.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal and discrimination.

The Tribunal questioned whether her unlicensed representative, who had previously been declared a vexatious litigant, met the Law Society's exemptions for providing legal services.

The applicant argued he was an unpaid member of a housing alliance or an unpaid friend.

The Tribunal found the alliance was not a recognized organization and that the representative was acting in more than three matters per year, violating the Law Society's By-Law 4 limit for unpaid friends.

The Tribunal ordered the representative removed.

The applicant filed an application alleging that the respondent breached a settlement agreement regarding disability accommodations during his incarcerations.

The applicant requested to expedite the application, arguing that he is likely to be incarcerated again soon and that the respondent's failure to provide self-care equipment causes serious harm.

The Tribunal granted the request to expedite, finding that the circumstances were truly urgent given the applicant's health issues and the potential for serious physical and mental harm.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to amend his human rights application to add an allegation of reprisal, claiming the respondents' school was over-monitoring him after he filed the initial application.

The respondents consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, finding the amendments were linked to the original allegations, the request was filed well ahead of the hearing, and there was no prejudice to the respondents.

The applicant, who has amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and uses a wheelchair, filed an application alleging the respondent school board failed to accommodate his disability in a printmaking class.

He filed a Request to Expedite the application, citing impending danger of serious health deterioration.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding the applicant's health issues constituted truly urgent circumstances.

The Tribunal slightly abridged the time for the respondent to file a response and directed the parties to immediately schedule an expedited mediation.

The applicant filed a request to withdraw her human rights application alleging reprisal and discrimination based on disability.

The respondent consented to the withdrawal but requested it be on a 'with prejudice' basis.

The Tribunal, following established jurisprudence, declined to impose conditions and permitted the withdrawal without prejudice, noting the request was made well in advance of the hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by her landlord's property management company on various grounds, including sex, race, disability, and receipt of public assistance.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's allegations were based on mere suspicion and belief, with no evidence linking the respondent's actions to any protected grounds under the Code.

The Tribunal also declined to declare the applicant a vexatious litigant because she attended the summary hearing.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code but failed to comply with the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure and multiple Case Assessment Directions requiring the disclosure of documents and witness summaries.

Despite warnings that the application could be dismissed as abandoned, the applicant did not file the required materials or communicate with the Tribunal.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned and cancelled the scheduled hearing.

The applicant filed human rights applications against the Toronto Police Services, two Superior Court judges, and opposing counsel from previous civil proceedings.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the applications against the judges and opposing counsel.

The Tribunal dismissed the applications against the judges on the basis of judicial immunity, as the allegations pertained to their judicial decision-making.

The application against opposing counsel was dismissed because there is no service relationship between a lawyer and an opposing party under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant was directed to provide further submissions regarding the remaining allegations against the Toronto Police Services.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the NOID by the deadline.

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

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his Application for Contravention of Settlement.

The applicant alleged that the respondent breached a settlement term regarding the destruction of his fingerprints and photograph.

He submitted a new document from the RCMP to support his claim that the respondent provided misleading information.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the new evidence was not determinative and did not show that the respondent failed to fulfill its obligations under the settlement.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination against her mother's nursing home.

The Tribunal previously directed the parties to file submissions on whether the applicant's mother should be added as an applicant.

The applicant failed to file submissions or provide the required confirmation of her mother's capacity and consent.

The Tribunal refused to add the mother as an applicant and directed the applicant to confirm whether she wishes to proceed with her own application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex and family status after her employer changed her shift upon her return from maternity leave, which interfered with her childcare arrangements.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed as an abuse of process because the applicant had previously signed Minutes of Settlement withdrawing a grievance on the same issues.

The Tribunal found that the grievance and settlement covered the same human rights allegations and that the applicant was not under duress when she signed the settlement.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The self-represented applicant requested to reopen his case after the hearing of evidence had concluded, in order to call a witness whose contact information he had previously lost.

The respondent objected but pointed to no specific prejudice.

The Tribunal applied the factors for reopening a case and found that the witness's evidence was relevant and potentially key, and that any prejudice to the respondent could be remedied by allowing cross-examination and reply evidence.

The request to adduce new evidence was granted to ensure a fair and just adjudication.

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

After requesting an adjournment of the first day of the hearing due to illness, the Tribunal directed the parties to attend a teleconference on the second day to address the adjournment request and potential mediation-adjudication.

The applicant failed to attend the teleconference and did not communicate with the Tribunal to explain her absence.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, deeming it to have been abandoned by the applicant.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on race, colour, and disability against the City of Ottawa and a city councillor regarding a parking variance dispute.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations of disability discrimination and discrimination related to a garbage warning, finding no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal allowed an amendment clarifying an $800 fine and directed the respondents to file a response to the remaining allegations of racial discrimination.

The applicant, who alleged discrimination on the basis of disability following his termination during a probationary period, sought to amend his application and requested the contact information of several of the respondent's employees to summons them as witnesses.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend on consent.

The Tribunal also ordered the respondent to provide contact information for several employees whose anticipated testimony regarding the applicant's performance and the respondent's alleged fabrication of evidence could be relevant, except for those employees the respondent had already confirmed it would call as witnesses.

The applicant's human rights application was initially dismissed as abandoned after he failed to comply with a Case Assessment Direction requiring the exchange of documents and witness lists.

The self-represented applicant requested reconsideration, explaining that he had attempted to comply by emailing the Tribunal but failed to copy the respondent, leading to the rejection of his filing.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not intend to abandon his application and that this factor outweighed the public interest in finality.

The request for reconsideration was granted, and the application was reinstated, with the applicant restricted to his own testimony and previously filed documents.

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

The Tribunal later requested an update on the status of the grievance proceedings, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's inquiry.

Consequently, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.