Mary Truemner

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application for abandonment after he failed to attend mediation and did not respond to a Registrar's letter.

The adjudicator accepted the applicant's evidence that he never received the letter and noted that he had contacted the Tribunal shortly after the missed mediation to inquire about his file.

Finding that the applicant did not intend to abandon his application, the Tribunal allowed the request for reconsideration.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of 'record of offences' after being dismissed upon returning from a sick day.

The Tribunal previously issued an interim decision finding that the application did not disclose a claim on that ground, as the applicant did not assert having any conviction.

The Tribunal provided the applicant an opportunity to amend the application to cite a different ground, such as disability.

The applicant failed to seek an amendment or communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application for being filed out of time.

Although the reconsideration request was filed late, the Tribunal extended the time limit because the applicant had previously inquired about the process.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request on the merits, finding that the applicant merely repeated previous arguments and failed to establish any of the criteria under Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in services based on disability, marital status, association, and reprisal, along with a Request to Expedite Proceedings.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss questioning jurisdiction.

After reviewing the applicant's submissions explaining that she was dismissed from her studies partly due to attendance affected by caring for her spouse who has multiple sclerosis, the Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the matter fell outside its jurisdiction.

The Tribunal denied the Request to Expedite, finding that the applicant's alleged financial hardship regarding student loan repayment did not constitute urgent circumstances.

The applicant filed a human rights application against a university and several personal respondents.

In their response, the respondents requested that the faculty association be added as a respondent.

The Tribunal granted the request and added the faculty association as a respondent.

The Tribunal also directed that this application proceed to mediation together with a similar application filed by another individual against the same respondents.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal.

The Tribunal previously deferred the application pending a decision on an earlier transitional application, but did so without seeking submissions from the parties.

The applicant brought this procedural error to the Tribunal's attention.

The Tribunal ordered that it will receive submissions from the parties on whether the application should be deferred and will make a new decision on the issue.

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.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondents to file a response within 7 days, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice and deem the respondents to have accepted the allegations.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code alleging age discrimination, and on the same day filed a transitional application under section 53(5) based on an earlier complaint to the Commission.

The Tribunal dismissed the section 34 application pursuant to section 53(8) of the Code, which prohibits a new application if the subject-matter is the same as a complaint filed under the old Part IV.

The section 53(5) application will continue to be processed.

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

Following a request by the respondent to reschedule mediation, the Tribunal attempted to contact the applicant to set a new date but was unsuccessful.

The Tribunal subsequently sent a letter warning the applicant that failure to respond within ten days would result in the application being deemed abandoned.

Receiving no response, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of 'record of offences' after being terminated following a sick day for a migraine.

The respondent sought early dismissal, arguing the allegations did not engage the protected ground of 'record of offences'.

The Tribunal agreed the facts did not support a 'record of offences' claim but found it premature to dismiss the application, as the allegations might relate to disability.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to file a Request for Order During Proceedings if he wished to amend his application to cite a different ground.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw his application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, pursuant to Rule 10 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondent agreed to the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission requested to intervene in an application alleging racial profiling by police.

The respondents had filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking dismissal on the basis that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over matters relating to arrests or detentions under the Criminal Code.

The Tribunal granted the Commission leave to intervene on the discreet legal issue of jurisdiction, finding its participation would be useful and would not unduly lengthen the proceedings.

A schedule for written submissions on the jurisdictional issue was established.

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

After failing to attend a scheduled mediation, the Tribunal sent a letter warning the applicant that failure to respond within ten days would result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant did not respond.

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

The complainant requested a reconsideration of an interim decision that removed three respondents (employer's counsel, the union, and the union representative) from his human rights complaints.

He also sought to add the union's counsel as a respondent.

The Tribunal found that adding a new respondent could not be dealt with on a reconsideration request.

The Tribunal denied the request for reconsideration, finding that the complainant's submissions merely repeated previous arguments and failed to establish any of the criteria required under Rule 102 for reconsideration.

The respondent requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision which found it had discriminated against the applicant by requiring her to indicate on an employment application whether she had been under psychiatric care.

The respondent argued it had a legislated duty to ensure caregivers were not a danger to vulnerable persons.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding the respondent was attempting to re-argue its case and had not established any of the criteria required for reconsideration under the Tribunal's Rules.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to lift a deferral of her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the outcome of an Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) hearing regarding her Employment Standards Act complaint.

The applicant offered to adjourn or withdraw her OLRB application if the Tribunal would proceed with her human rights application.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the OLRB proceeding had not yet concluded and the Tribunal does not provide orders based on hypothetical facts or reconsider interim decisions.

The application remains deferred.

The applicant filed an application alleging reprisal and discrimination based on disability and family status.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the subject-matter appeared substantially the same as a complaint already filed with the Commission and currently before the Tribunal under section 53(5) of the Code.

The applicant failed to provide written submissions explaining how the allegations differed.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as barred by section 53(8) of the Human Rights Code.

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

The respondent sought dismissal on the basis that it operates an inter-provincial and international trucking business, making it a federal undertaking under section 92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The applicant did not dispute the nature of the respondent's business.

The Tribunal found the application was outside its jurisdiction and dismissed it pursuant to Rule 13.1 of its Rules of Procedure.

The applicant alleged that the respondent breached a settlement agreement by failing to provide a timely and accurate letter of reference.

The Tribunal found no agreement on the timing or content of the letter, but concluded that the incorrect start date in the provided letter constituted an inadvertent breach.

The respondent was ordered to amend the letter of reference to reflect the correct start date.

No monetary damages were awarded.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by a prosecutor and police officer during a traffic violation trial.

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

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to demonstrate the delay was incurred in good faith.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that a prosecutor and police officer acting for an opposing party in litigation are not providing a service under the Code.

The application was dismissed.