Mary Truemner

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal.

The Tribunal had previously deferred the application pending the outcome of related transitional applications.

Following the dismissal of those transitional applications for delay, the Tribunal lifted the deferral, allowing the current application to proceed.

The Tribunal also issued case management directions regarding the applicant's request to add new respondents and the respondents' request to dismiss the application, ordering the exchange of further submissions.

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 within 10 days, along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice to them.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing on the basis of sex and reprisal against a housing co-operative, its manager, and nine members of its Board of Directors.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss against the Board members on the basis that the application failed to identify specific acts of discrimination by them.

After reviewing the applicant's submissions that the Board approves the manager's decisions regarding internal unit transfers, the Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the Board members should be removed as personal respondents at this preliminary stage.

The Tribunal directed that the application be delivered to all respondents, who may later make submissions on jurisdiction or request removal as parties.

The corporate respondent requested the removal of three of its employees as personal respondents to a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing.

The applicant consented to the removal of one but opposed the removal of the other two.

Applying the factors from Persaud, the Tribunal found no compelling reason to continue the proceeding against the individuals, as their alleged conduct occurred within the scope of their employment duties and the corporate respondent could provide a complete remedy if an infringement was found.

The request was granted and the three individuals were removed as personal respondents.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, specifically regarding the respondent's failure to accommodate his workplace injury.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the outcome of a concurrent union grievance dealing with the same facts and issues.

The Tribunal granted the request to defer, finding a significant overlap of facts and human rights issues between the grievance proceeding and the application, and noting the grievance arbitrator's responsibility to implement and enforce the Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability approximately one year and eight months after the limitation period expired.

The applicant argued the delay was in good faith because he was waiting for his union to process a grievance related to the same events, and subsequently needed time to find a lawyer and the Tribunal's contact information.

The Tribunal found that waiting for the outcome of another legal proceeding does not constitute a valid explanation for delay, and that the applicant failed to act with due diligence.

The application was dismissed as out of time.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the grounds of race and place of origin.

A hearing was scheduled, but the applicant failed to attend.

After waiting 30 minutes and confirming that the applicant had notice of the hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the application due to the applicant's non-attendance.

The applicant, a tenant with a disability, alleged discrimination and harassment by a fellow tenant and a failure to investigate by the housing provider.

The housing provider admitted to failing to provide a poison-free environment and agreed to the requested remedies.

The Tribunal found that the fellow tenant engaged in a course of vexatious comment related to the applicant's disability.

The Tribunal ordered the housing provider to pay $322 in compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and ordered various systemic remedies including staff training and policy communication.

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

The respondent requested early dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance was dealt with by the Social Benefits Tribunal, or alternatively, a deferral.

The respondent also requested that these preliminary issues be adjudicated before participating in the scheduled mediation.

The Tribunal granted the request to adjudicate the preliminary issues first, cancelled the mediation, and scheduled an oral hearing to determine the requests to dismiss and defer, noting that section 43(2) requires an opportunity for oral submissions before finally disposing of an application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming the respondent failed to accommodate him and provide him with work.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application because the applicant's union had filed a grievance regarding the same issue, which was proceeding to arbitration.

The Tribunal granted the request to defer, finding a significant overlap of facts and human rights issues between the grievance and the application, and noting the arbitrator's jurisdiction to address human rights violations.

The respondent requested an adjournment on the day of the hearing because its president, who intended to represent the respondent and testify, required an interpreter to participate.

The applicants opposed the request.

The Tribunal found the request genuine and granted the adjournment to avoid breaching the rules of natural justice, noting that the new hearing date would be peremptory on the respondent.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing on the basis that it had only retained counsel the day before.

The applicants opposed the request, noting their own counsel had prepared expeditiously and they had made arrangements for witnesses.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, holding that retaining counsel at the last minute does not constitute an exceptional circumstance justifying an adjournment, and noting the prejudice to the applicants.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of grievance proceedings.

The applicant argued that the grievance procedure had expired due to the corporate respondent's failure to abide by collective agreement timeframes.

The respondents opposed the request, stating that the grievances were still active and at step three.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the grievance proceedings had not concluded and that a deferred application will not be reactivated simply because a party feels the other proceeding is not moving quickly enough.

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

The respondent failed to file a Response within the required 35 days.

The Tribunal issued an Interim Decision warning the respondent that failure to participate may lead to orders against it without its participation, and granted the respondent 10 days to file a Response with an explanation for the delay.

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 activist using her work email.

The Tribunal noted that the application did not reveal any connection between the respondents' conduct and a prohibited ground under the Human Rights Code, nor did it show reprisal for claiming Code rights.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide written submissions explaining how the alleged conduct relates to the Code before determining its jurisdiction to hear the matter.

The applicant, a condominium owner, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on race and sexual solicitation, claiming she was placed on a 'black list' by the condominium board president and received inferior services.

The respondent requested early dismissal.

At the hearing, the applicant conceded there was no connection between the alleged bad treatment and any protected grounds under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction to resolve general disputes about rudeness or unfairness in a condominium environment absent allegations of discrimination on protected grounds.

The applicants filed seven separate applications alleging discrimination in services based on creed.

The applications were completed in French.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal translate the applications into English and allow late Responses.

The Tribunal refused to translate the documents, noting its practice is not to translate documents filed in one of the official languages.

The Tribunal granted the respondent an extension to February 20, 2010, to file Responses, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice.

The applicant filed a human rights application against three corporate respondents.

One respondent filed a response indicating it purchased assets from another respondent that was under CCAA protection.

The CEO of the other two respondents informed the Tribunal they were insolvent and subject to CCAA proceedings or receivership.

The Tribunal ordered the parties to make submissions and provide any court orders regarding the effect of the CCAA proceedings on the human rights application.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw his human rights application pursuant to Rule 10 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondent made no submissions.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found the respondent had not contravened a settlement agreement regarding the content of a reference letter.

The applicant alleged new facts and argued he was disadvantaged at the original hearing due to a lack of English interpretation.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding the alleged new facts were available at the time of the hearing and would not have been determinative.

The Tribunal also found the applicant had a full and fair opportunity to be heard and did not request an interpreter during the hearing.