Mary Truemner

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on race, colour, ethnic origin, and disability.

The applicant requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the application pending the outcome of an ongoing union grievance based on the same facts.

Neither the respondent nor the union made submissions opposing the request.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, place of origin, ethnic origin, disability, and creed, as well as reprisal by his employer and union.

The respondents requested early dismissal on the basis that the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay in filing the application more than a year after the last alleged incidents of discrimination.

As the applicant did not demonstrate that the delay was incurred in good faith, the application was dismissed as out of time.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in goods, services and facilities because of race and colour against her bankruptcy trustee.

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

The applicant provided submissions but failed to explain the delay in filing.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not satisfy the burden of demonstrating that the delay was incurred in good faith under s. 34(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application alleging reprisal under the Human Rights Code.

The respondents requested early dismissal, arguing the application was an abuse of process because the applicant had already sought to add the same reprisal allegations to an earlier 2008 application.

The Tribunal deferred consideration of the 2009 application until it determined whether the reprisal allegations would be heard as part of the 2008 application.

The applicant contacted the Tribunal indicating a desire to withdraw his application but failed to file the required Form 9 Request to Withdraw.

After the applicant failed to respond to a Registrar's letter warning that the application would be deemed abandoned, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation and reprisals during her time as a volunteer with the respondent.

The application was filed more than a year after the last alleged incident.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for delay.

The applicant provided submissions but failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay of nearly two and a half years.

The Tribunal found that the delay was not incurred in good faith and dismissed the application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondents brought a Request for Order During Proceeding to dismiss the human rights application for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that the applicant's detention and search fell under federal criminal law.

The applicant argued the police actions constituted services under provincial legislation.

The Tribunal deferred the jurisdictional decision and directed that notice be provided to the Ontario Human Rights Commission to allow it the opportunity to intervene on the broader public policy issue.

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

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because the subject matter was identical to an ongoing grievance arbitration.

The Tribunal found that the grievance raised similar facts and issues and involved the same parties.

To avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance arbitration process.

The complainant alleged discrimination in employment based on sexual orientation against his former employer, a union, and several individuals.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal granted a request to remove the employer's counsel as a personal respondent, as the employer accepted responsibility for her actions.

The Tribunal also dismissed the complaint against the union and its representative for lack of jurisdiction, finding no allegations that they discriminated against the complainant based on his sexual orientation.

However, the Tribunal found it had jurisdiction over the complaint against a co-worker who allegedly made comments about the complainant's sexual orientation to the employer, allowing that portion of the complaint to proceed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination based on race, colour, ethnic origin, and sex, specifically regarding inadequate pay.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that the application appeared to be filed outside the one-year limitation period.

The applicant provided written submissions arguing that recent pay stubs demonstrated ongoing inadequate pay.

The Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the application was filed out of time and directed that the application be served on the respondent.

The applicant filed a Request to Expedite his human rights application, alleging that the respondent company might be filing for bankruptcy or closing.

The respondent opposed the request, arguing the concern was speculative.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate truly urgent circumstances that would justify giving the application priority over other matters.

The respondent requested early dismissal of the human rights application under s. 34(11) of the Code, arguing the applicant had filed a civil claim in Small Claims Court based on the same facts.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that while the civil claim for assault shared some facts with the application, it did not allege human rights discrimination or seek remedies under the Code.

The respondent was ordered to file a full Response.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing based on race and sexual solicitation, claiming her name was on a black list kept by the respondent condominium corporation.

The respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking early dismissal on grounds including lack of jurisdiction, no prima facie case, and abuse of process.

The Tribunal found that the preliminary issues should be considered by way of an oral hearing and directed the Registrar to schedule a half-day hearing to address the respondent's request for dismissal.

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 warning the respondent of the consequences of failing to participate, including the possibility of the Tribunal proceeding without further notice.

The Tribunal granted the respondent a final 7 days to file a response and an explanation for the delay.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

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

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondent to file a Response within 7 days, along with an explanation for the delay.

The Tribunal warned that failure to do so could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming the respondent to have accepted the allegations pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Rules of Procedure.

The respondent failed to file a Response to the Application within the required timeline.

After the Tribunal issued an Interim Decision noting the failure, the respondent's solicitor requested an extension, claiming the Application was never received due to a municipal strike.

The applicant opposed the request, arguing the respondent was aware of the Application and was delaying the process.

The Tribunal granted the respondent's request to file a Response but abridged the usual time to 20 days, noting the respondent's prior awareness of the dispute.

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

The respondents made no submissions on the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant, a child, requested to amend his human rights application to add his mother as a party and family status as a ground, and to consolidate his application with his mother's newly filed application.

The Tribunal denied these requests, finding they would prejudice the respondents and delay the imminent hearing.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to use initials to protect his identity.

The parties' joint request for an adjournment was denied.

The respondents' request to add a late witness was denied due to prejudice to the applicant, while their request to add a document was deferred to the hearing.

The applicant filed two human rights applications alleging discrimination.

In the first application, the applicant requested to remove the union's Associate Counsel as a personal respondent, which the Tribunal granted.

In the second application, the union requested to intervene in support of the applicant's claim against the employer regarding an attendance bonus programme.

Despite the applicant's opposition, the Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene, finding it had an interest in the issues raised.

The applicant, a wheelchair user, filed a human rights application alleging a 7-Eleven store was inaccessible.

He sought to amend his application to add claims for $25,000 in general damages, a public letter of regret, and a systemic remedy requiring automatic doors at all 7-Eleven stores in Canada.

The respondent opposed the amendment and moved to dismiss the application as moot, noting it had recently installed automatic doors at the store in question.

The Tribunal allowed the amendments for damages and the letter of regret, finding no prejudice to the respondent.

The Tribunal dismissed the respondent's mootness motion because the applicant was entitled to seek these additional remedies.

The request to add a systemic remedy was deferred to the hearing.