Mary Truemner

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to services by the Ontario Disability Support Program based on ethnic origin and disability.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations regarding ethnic origin, finding no evidence beyond the applicant's speculation to link the alleged unfair treatment to his ethnic origin.

However, the Tribunal allowed the disability discrimination allegation to proceed, as there was a factual dispute regarding whether the respondent knew or ought to have known that the applicant's inability to attend in-person meetings was related to his physical disability.

The applicant, a lacrosse coach, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race, ancestry, and creed after being suspended by the Ontario Lacrosse Association for allowing an unregistered player to try out.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had no reasonable prospect of success, as there was no evidence linking his suspension or the alleged procedural unfairness to his race, ancestry, or creed.

The application was dismissed.

The respondent filed a Request for Summary Hearing in an application alleging discrimination with respect to services because of race, place of origin, and ethnic origin.

The Tribunal denied the request without reasons, pursuant to Rule 19A.5, and directed the respondent to indicate willingness to mediate.

In an application alleging age discrimination in the respondent school board's failure to hire the applicant for acting and permanent Department Head positions, the applicant sought production of various documents.

The Tribunal applied the 'arguable relevance' standard and ordered the respondent to disclose the successful candidate's age and application materials, subject to privacy redactions.

The Tribunal denied requests for information regarding unsuccessful candidates and historical hiring data, finding them not arguably relevant.

Requests for documents relating to the International Baccalaureate program and the applicant's personnel files were deferred to the hearing.

The applicant filed human rights applications on behalf of herself and her mother, alleging discrimination with respect to services by a nursing home, its employees, and employees of the Public Guardian and Trustee.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal removed the nursing home employees as personal respondents, adding the corporate operator in their place.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the Public Guardian and Trustee respondents, finding no service relationship existed between them and the applicant, as their interactions occurred in the context of adversarial litigation over the mother's care.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application against the nursing home at this preliminary stage, finding it arguable that the home provided services to the applicant while she acted under a Power of Attorney.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application for being filed outside the one-year limitation period.

The applicant argued the Tribunal made an error of law in interpreting s. 36(3) of the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, which the Tribunal had relied on to find that a caution issued by the respondent's committee could not be admitted as an incident of discrimination.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that the applicant was merely attempting to re-argue her case and that the proposed reconsideration did not involve a matter of general or public importance.

The applicant alleged discrimination and reprisal based on disability (medical marijuana use) against his landlord and its agents, primarily related to eviction proceedings at the Landlord and Tenant Board and a Small Claims Court action.

The Tribunal dismissed several allegations at the outset of the hearing, finding that the respondents' actions and statements in the legal proceedings were protected by absolute privilege.

Following this ruling and an unsuccessful mediation attempt, the applicant left the hearing room and did not return.

The Tribunal found the applicant had abandoned the applications and dismissed them in their entirety.

In an ongoing human rights application alleging reprisal and discrimination, the applicant sought to add a former representative of the respondents as a personal respondent.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting the late stage of the proceedings, the applicant's previous confirmation that he did not wish to add her, and the absence of any issue regarding the corporate respondent's ability to respond to or remedy an alleged Code violation.

The Tribunal also provided directions for the continuation of the hearing, including addressing issues of absolute privilege and sections 45.1 and 34(11) of the Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in services by the WSIB and its employees based on allegedly insulting comments made during her work transition assessments.

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

The Tribunal found that, given the context of the WSIB employees' roles in assessing work transition and the plain meaning of the words used, there was no reasonable prospect that the applicant could establish the comments were objectively insulting or discriminatory.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by her employer (CAMH), her union (ONA), and a psychiatrist (Dr. Klassen) on multiple grounds including race, sex, age, disability, and reprisal.

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

The Tribunal dismissed all allegations against ONA and Dr. Klassen, and all allegations against CAMH except those relating to disability accommodation and termination, finding the dismissed allegations lacked evidence linking the respondents' conduct to Code grounds or were out of time.

The remaining disability allegations against CAMH were scheduled for a further preliminary hearing to address timeliness and whether they had been dealt with in another proceeding.

The respondent tennis club brought a Request for Order During Proceedings to strike portions of the applicant's Reply, arguing it contained new allegations of condoning discrimination and failing to protect the applicant, and that these allegations were out of time.

The Tribunal denied the request to strike, finding the allegations were already raised in the initial Application.

The Tribunal deferred the request to dismiss the allegations for delay to the hearing, noting the evidence would be relevant to the reprisal claim in any event.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability, claiming his pay was reduced and he was constructively dismissed.

The applicant subsequently requested to defer the Tribunal proceedings pending the conclusion of a related civil action he commenced against the respondent in the Superior Court of Justice.

The respondent consented to the deferral.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that deferral was appropriate to avoid adjudicative duplication and inconsistent results, given the overlap in factual background and remedies sought.

The applicant requested the reactivation of a human rights application that had been deferred pending the conclusion of related legal proceedings.

The applicant claimed that all motions to appeal had been dismissed.

The respondent opposed the request and provided evidence that the Ontario Court of Appeal had granted leave to appeal.

The Tribunal denied the request to reactivate, as the related appeal proceedings were not yet concluded.

The applicant failed to comply with the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure and a Case Assessment Direction requiring the disclosure of documents, witness lists, and witness statements.

The Tribunal warned the applicant that failure to comply could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant did not file the required materials by the deadline.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned and cancelled the scheduled hearing.

The applicant, a student alleging discrimination with respect to services because of disability, filed Requests for Orders During Proceedings seeking the production of various documents and recordings from the respondent college.

The Tribunal reviewed the requests and ordered the respondent to produce an audio recording of specific voicemail messages, but denied the majority of the production requests on the basis of relevance or because the documents did not exist.

The Tribunal also granted the applicant's request to remove the ground of colour from her application, but deferred her requests to add a ground of sexual harassment and to have her brother assist in her representation to the commencement of the hearing.

The respondent requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found it discriminated against the applicant by terminating her employment while she was on medical leave, and awarded $25,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The respondent argued the adjudicator denied it procedural fairness by refusing production requests and discounting evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the request regarding the finding of discrimination, finding no bias or conflict with established jurisprudence.

However, the Tribunal granted reconsideration of the compensation award, finding the original adjudicator improperly increased the award to sanction the respondent for vigorously defending itself during the hearing.

The parties were directed to agree on quantum or schedule a new hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by the Ontario College of Teachers and several individuals.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success and for being outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction due to adjudicative immunity.

The Tribunal dismissed several allegations, including one regarding the scheduling of a meeting on a religious holiday due to delay, and others for having no reasonable prospect of success.

However, the Tribunal allowed the allegation that the applicant was discriminatorily excluded from sitting on the Discipline Committee to proceed to a full hearing.

The Tribunal deferred its decision on whether statutory privilege barred allegations regarding the College's Investigation Committee, directing a further preliminary hearing on that issue.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that his employer discriminated against him based on his ancestry when he was disciplined and terminated.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant could not point to any evidence beyond his own belief to connect the disciplinary actions and termination to his ancestry.

The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled summary hearing before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

The Tribunal waited 30 minutes and, noting that the applicant had received notice of the hearing and had previously communicated availability, deemed the applications abandoned.

The applications were dismissed.

The applicant, a massage therapist, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by the College of Massage Therapists of Ontario regarding its investigation and disciplinary processes.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed for delay.

The Tribunal found that the most recent incidents relied upon by the applicant, including a formal caution, were inadmissible under section 36(3) of the Regulated Health Professions Act.

The remaining allegations occurred more than one year before the application was filed.

As the applicant provided no good faith explanation for the delay, the application was dismissed.