Mary Truemner

The applicants filed human rights applications alleging discrimination by the Social Benefits Tribunal regarding the handling of an appeal for benefits.

The respondent requested the applications be dismissed because they were filed more than a year after the alleged incidents.

The applicants failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay and abandoned the hearing.

The Tribunal found the delay was not incurred in good faith and dismissed the applications under section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant, a tenant, alleged discrimination by his landlord and another tenant on various grounds.

Prior to the hearing, the applicant filed multiple requests for orders.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's requests to amend the application to add paragraphs to the remedy section and to include allegations of systemic discrimination, finding no prejudice to the respondents.

However, the Tribunal denied the applicant's requests for the production of numerical data regarding the racial and religious characteristics of tenants and for a Tribunal-ordered inquiry on the same topic, as the requested data did not exist and would not assist in adjudicating the application.

The applicant filed an application alleging a contravention of settlement.

The respondent failed to file a formal Response within the required time but sent an e-mail addressing the substance of the allegations, stating that the remaining settlement funds would be paid.

The Tribunal waived the strict application of its Rules, accepted the e-mail as a Response, and directed the Registrar to schedule the application for a hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application but sent a letter withdrawing it on the morning of the scheduled hearing.

Neither the applicant nor her counsel attended the hearing.

The respondent attended and consented to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal reminded counsel that parties cannot unilaterally decide not to attend a scheduled hearing and noted non-compliance with Rule 10 regarding withdrawals.

Given the respondent's consent, the Tribunal waived strict compliance and granted leave to withdraw the application.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming he was not offered work after suffering a knee injury.

The respondent maintained that the lack of work offers was due to a general shortage of work and the applicant's rude behaviour, rather than his knee condition.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's decision not to offer work was based on a genuine belief that the applicant was rude and the financial benefit of using a friend who worked for free.

The application was dismissed as the Tribunal concluded the knee problem was not a factor in the respondent's decision.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the ground of sexual orientation following his termination.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the completion of an ongoing union grievance process based on the same facts.

With the applicant's consent, the Tribunal deferred the application, noting that grievance arbitrators have the responsibility to enforce human rights obligations.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging she was terminated from her employment due to pregnancy.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal dismiss or defer the application because the applicant had also filed an Employment Standards Act complaint on the same grounds.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application under s. 45.1 of the Code because the Ontario Labour Relations Board had not yet heard the ESA review.

However, the Tribunal deferred the application under s. 45 of the Code pending the conclusion of the OLRB proceeding.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend the respondents in her human rights application.

On consent, the Tribunal ordered that Falls Management Group, L.P. be added as a respondent and Complex Services Inc. be removed.

The applicant's request to add the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation was deferred because the proposed respondent had not been served with the request.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sex discrimination, sexual harassment, and sexual solicitation in housing.

The respondent failed to file a Response despite receiving the Notice of Application and a previous interim decision directing him to do so.

The Tribunal deemed the respondent to have accepted all allegations in the Application and waived his right to participate.

A hearing was scheduled, and the applicant was directed to address the shared accommodation exemption under section 21 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

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 under Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, and granted an extension until May 4, 2009, to file a response along with an explanation for the delay.

The applicant filed an Application alleging Contravention of Settlement.

The respondent failed to file a Response within the required 14-day period.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent of the consequences of failing to respond and granted the respondent 10 days to file a Response along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal would proceed without further notice.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that the Application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction under s. 53(8) due to a prior complaint filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

The applicant argued the Application dealt with new incidents, but could not produce the prior complaint.

The Tribunal found it lacked sufficient information to decide the jurisdictional issue and directed that the Application be served on the respondents, who may raise the issue in their Response.

The responding party requested early dismissal or deferral of a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The responding party argued the substance of the application had been dealt with through WSIB mediation agreements and an internal investigation.

The Tribunal denied the request for early dismissal, finding the WSIB agreements were negotiated return-to-work plans rather than a proceeding that dealt with the substance of the human rights issues.

The Tribunal also denied the request for deferral, noting the internal investigation was already complete and no WSIB proceeding was pending.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the Ministry of the Attorney General, alleging discrimination on the basis of sex by a Family Court judge and lawyers during a pre-trial conference.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the Ministry does not provide a service under the Code that includes overseeing judges and lawyers, who are governed by the Canadian Judicial Council and the Law Society of Upper Canada, respectively.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held it has no jurisdiction to review or vary an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The applicant filed a Request for Order to amend his human rights application to include an allegation of discrimination because of disability.

The respondent consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted the amendment, noting the consent and that the original application already included a description of events related to the disability claim.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging gender discrimination by the family law judicial system during a spousal support variation proceeding.

The respondent requested early dismissal, citing judicial immunity and arguing the matter was resolved by Minutes of Settlement.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision noting it lacks jurisdiction over broad systemic complaints against the justice system and directed the applicant to provide written submissions explaining how the Tribunal has jurisdiction over the specific allegations against the respondent.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment.

The respondents requested dismissal due to delay and lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision scheduling a hearing to determine whether the application is barred by the one-year time limit under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw his human rights application filed under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, 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 respondents requested to defer the applicant's human rights application until her union grievances, which included allegations of Code violations based on the same facts, were concluded.

The applicant wished to proceed with the application, but the union would not drop the grievances.

The Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application pending the conclusion of the grievance process, as it involved the same facts and issues.

The applicant filed a human rights application but failed to attend a scheduled mediation and subsequently failed to respond to a Tribunal direction inquiring whether he intended to pursue the application.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the applicant to contact the Tribunal within 10 days to confirm his intention to proceed, failing which the application would be deemed abandoned.