Mary Truemner

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because a change in his medication rendered him not fully lucid.

The respondents consented to the adjournment on the condition that it be rescheduled for the next available dates and that any further delay require medical evidence.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that the sudden medical issue constituted exceptional circumstances, and directed that the new hearing dates would be peremptory on the applicant.

The applicant requested a last-minute adjournment of a preliminary hearing, claiming she had to attend court.

The Tribunal directed her to file a court document confirming her attendance.

The applicant failed to provide the required proof and instead submitted letters from third parties that did not confirm her court attendance.

Finding that the applicant obtained the adjournment on a false basis and repeatedly failed to comply with directions, the Tribunal dismissed the application as an abuse of process.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application as abandoned after she failed to attend a scheduled summary hearing.

The applicant claimed she did not receive the Notice of Summary Hearing.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that correspondence authored and received by the applicant demonstrated she was aware of the hearing date well in advance.

The Tribunal concluded that any failure to obtain the call-in details was the applicant's own fault, and thus the criteria for reconsideration were not met.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code but failed to comply with the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure regarding the exchange of documents and witness information.

Following a Case Assessment Direction that warned of dismissal for non-compliance, the applicant again failed to file the required materials or communicate with the Tribunal by the specified deadline.

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

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

The respondent failed to file a response despite multiple notices and warnings from the Tribunal.

Pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal ordered that the respondent is deemed to have accepted all allegations in the application and waived all rights to notice or participation in the proceedings.

A case management conference call was scheduled to determine next steps.

The applicant filed an Application alleging the respondent contravened a previous settlement under s. 45.9(3) of the Human Rights Code.

At the hearing, the respondent's counsel requested an adjournment, claiming he had not received documents indicating the hearing would involve evidence and was therefore unprepared.

The Tribunal found it possible the respondent had not received proper notice and granted the adjournment to ensure fairness, setting peremptory dates and imposing conditions on the respondent regarding document disclosure and contact information.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to services by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board on the basis of race, place of origin, and citizenship.

At the hearing, the self-represented applicant consented to the respondent's request that the application be dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the application on consent.

The applicant, an Internal Medicine Graduate, alleged discrimination after failing to match with the respondent's residency program.

Shortly before the scheduled hearing, the applicant requested an adjournment and sought to add the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care and CaRMS as respondents.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, noting it was requested at the last minute without exceptional circumstances and would impede timely access to justice.

The request to add parties was also denied as being too late in the process and because neither proposed party was alleged to have denied the applicant services or employment.

The applicant alleged age discrimination after being rejected for an acting Department Head position.

He sought to amend his application to include a subsequent rejection for the permanent position.

The respondent consented to the amendment on the condition that a duplicate application be withdrawn and the hearing adjourned.

The Tribunal granted the amendment and adjournment on consent.

The Tribunal also granted the Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association intervenor status to make arguments and cross-examine witnesses, finding no exceptional circumstances to deny the union's request despite the applicant's opposition.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Hearing and a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to disclose documents and witness lists by specific deadlines.

The applicant failed to comply with the directions and did not communicate with the Tribunal.

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

The applicant requested to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the completion of a related grievance proceeding.

The respondent opposed the request, arguing the application should be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code because the substance was dealt with in the grievance.

The Tribunal found the grievance proceeding had concluded and the request to reactivate was timely.

The Tribunal ordered the application reactivated and directed the respondent to file its Response, noting that any s. 45.1 dismissal request would require an oral hearing.

The applicant filed a request to reactivate his human rights application following a Divisional Court decision.

The respondent opposed the reactivation on the basis that it had filed a motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

The Tribunal denied the request to reactivate, finding that the application should remain deferred pending the conclusion of the ongoing appeal proceedings.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to amend his human rights application by striking out several paragraphs.

The respondents did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal granted the amendment, finding it would streamline the hearing and reduce the issues without prejudicing the respondents.

Additionally, the Tribunal noted that both parties had failed to comply with Rule 16 regarding pre-hearing disclosure of arguably relevant documents, and directed them to immediately file their Statements of Delivery.

The 17-year-old self-represented applicant attended a summary hearing regarding his human rights applications against multiple respondents.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant did not have a litigation guardian.

Because the issue of whether a minor may proceed without a litigation guardian is complex and the parties had not prepared arguments on it, the Tribunal adjourned the summary hearing until after the applicant's 18th birthday.

The applicant, an Internal Medicine Graduate who was not matched for the respondent's residency program, alleged discrimination based on race, colour, citizenship, ethnic origin, and age.

He filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking production of documents regarding the citizenship, credentials, and matching statistics of other applicants.

The Tribunal denied the request for information from previous years as irrelevant, and deferred the request for information about other 2014 interviewees until after witness testimony.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding brought preliminary requests to amend the application, compel production of medical documents, and permit two medical witnesses to testify by teleconference.

The Tribunal granted the amendments on consent.

Regarding document production, the respondent was ordered to provide its communications with the third party holding the documents.

The Tribunal permitted one doctor to testify by teleconference as his credibility was not a significant issue, but required the other doctor to attend in person because his credibility was critical to the proceeding.

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

The Tribunal scheduled a hearing by teleconference and delivered a Notice of Confirmation of Hearing to the applicant.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing and did not communicate with the Tribunal.

Upon the respondent's request, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, alleged discrimination based on race, colour, and sex after being denied access to condominium records.

In this interim decision, the applicant requested to add the property manager, the property management company, and the vice-president of the Board of Directors as personal respondents, alleging a conspiracy.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the corporate respondent would be vicariously liable for any discrimination and that adding personal respondents would unnecessarily complicate the proceedings without a compelling juridical reason.

The applicant, an elderly woman, alleged that an investigator for the College of Physicians and Surgeons discriminated against her on the basis of disability by refusing to allow her to file a complaint against a doctor.

The investigator had sought consent for the release of medical records from the applicant's daughter, acting as substitute decision-maker, because the applicant was unresponsive.

The Tribunal found that the investigator did not refuse to accept a complaint from the applicant because of her disability, but rather reasonably understood that the daughter was the complainant and required consent to access medical information.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination and reprisal based on disability against a paralegal firm and its subcontractor, who were retained by his landlord for eviction proceedings.

The respondents allegedly disclosed the applicant's medical marijuana use to neighbours, photographed his plants, and reported him to the police.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had no reasonable prospect of success, particularly concerning whether the respondents' actions as legal representatives fell under the Code's accommodation provisions.

The Tribunal concluded the application could not be dismissed at this preliminary stage and directed the matter to continue.