Mary Truemner

The applicant alleged that the respondent university discriminated against her on the basis of age, ancestry, place of origin, and ethnic origin when it did not interview her for a tenure-track position in the history of French Canada and Quebec.

The Tribunal found that the majority of the hiring committee reasonably concluded from the applicant's curriculum vitae that she did not possess the required expertise in the specific field.

Although one committee member applied criteria that created a distinction based on Code grounds, this did not disadvantage the applicant because the rest of the committee had already excluded her for non-discriminatory reasons.

The application was dismissed.

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

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed several preliminary requests.

The Tribunal added the condominium corporation as a respondent but declined to remove the board president as a personal respondent, noting that his individual conduct was at issue.

The Tribunal also permitted the applicant to amend her ground of discrimination from gender identity to sex.

The request to add the property manager, property management company, and board vice-president was deferred pending further submissions.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code but failed to comply with the Tribunal's directions to exchange documents and witness lists.

After a Case Assessment Direction warned that failure to comply could result in dismissal, the applicant still did not communicate with the Tribunal or file the required materials.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned and cancelled the scheduled hearing.

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

The respondents brought a preliminary request to dismiss the application, arguing that the corporate respondent, a scrap metal recycling and logistics business, is a federally-regulated undertaking because it regularly transports goods to the United States.

The Tribunal found that the corporate respondent operated an international transportation undertaking and that the applicant's duties were an integral part of it.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal.

The respondent argued the application was an abuse of process because the parties had previously executed a full and final release settling a wrongful dismissal claim that included similar allegations.

The applicant claimed she signed the release under duress due to the mediator's behaviour and without knowing her expenses should have been covered.

The Tribunal found no duress, noting the applicant was represented by counsel and supported by her husband during mediation.

The Tribunal concluded that allowing the application to proceed would be an abuse of process and dismissed it.

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

A hearing was scheduled and the applicant was provided with notice.

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

The self-represented respondents attended.

The Tribunal dismissed the application on the basis that it was deemed abandoned.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of disability, claiming the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) ignored medical evidence and wrongly denied him benefits.

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

Applying established jurisprudence, the Tribunal found that it does not have the power to review WSIB decisions for correctness, and an allegation that a decision-maker misinterpreted medical documentation does not amount to a Code violation.

As the applicant failed to allege any discriminatory conduct, the application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant requested reconsideration of an interim decision that dismissed certain allegations of employment discrimination for delay.

The applicant also requested an adjournment of the upcoming hearing to retain legal counsel.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario denied both requests, finding no compelling circumstances to outweigh the public interest in finality for the reconsideration, and noting that failure to retain counsel in a timely manner does not constitute an extraordinary circumstance warranting an adjournment.

The applicant alleged age discrimination after being denied a department head position in favour of a younger candidate.

The Tribunal directed a summary hearing to determine if the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the application could not be dismissed at this stage and directed that the matter proceed to a full two-day hearing.

The applicant, a personal support worker, alleged discrimination and reprisal by her employer and union.

At a summary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the allegations against the union, finding no reasonable prospect of success as there was no evidence linking the union's alleged inaction to a Code ground.

However, the Tribunal allowed the reprisal allegation against the employer to proceed, finding that if the applicant could prove her workload was unfairly increased after she filed previous human rights complaints, an inference of reprisal could be drawn.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in housing under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued multiple Case Assessment Directions requiring the applicant to file pre-hearing disclosure documents and warning that failure to comply could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to file the required materials or communicate with the Tribunal by the specified deadlines.

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

The applicant filed human rights applications alleging discrimination in employment based on race, creed, and disability.

The respondents requested the dismissal of allegations relating to events from 2011 and earlier due to delay.

The Tribunal found that the earlier incidents were not part of a series of incidents ending with the applicant's 2014 termination, as the earlier incidents were linked to race and creed, while the termination was linked solely to disability.

As the applicant provided no explanation for the delay, the Tribunal dismissed the allegations related to 2011 and earlier.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal based on disability more than a year after the last alleged incident.

A preliminary hearing was held to determine if the application should be dismissed for delay under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued the delay was in good faith because his union representative advised him he could not file a human rights application while his grievance was ongoing.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the union representative, who denied giving such advice.

Finding no good faith explanation for the delay, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

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

A continuation of a summary hearing was scheduled by teleconference.

The applicant's litigation guardian failed to attend the hearing and did not communicate with the Tribunal to explain the absence.

The respondent attended and requested the application be dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision dismissing her human rights application for delay.

The Tribunal had found that the application, alleging discrimination based on disability, was filed more than one year after the last incident of discrimination.

On reconsideration, the Tribunal upheld its finding that the application was filed out of time.

However, the Tribunal granted reconsideration on the issue of whether the delay was incurred in good faith, as the initial decision failed to address the applicant's argument that she received incorrect legal advice regarding the limitation period.

A preliminary hearing was ordered to hear evidence on the good faith issue.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, claiming the respondent pressured him to work while ill and failed to accommodate him.

The respondent requested the dismissal of allegations relating to events that occurred more than one year before the application was filed.

The Tribunal deferred its decision on the timeliness issue, finding that evidence was required to determine whether the earlier events formed a series of incidents with the timely allegations.

The Tribunal also issued directions for document disclosure and the upcoming mediation-adjudication.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing due to a recent medical emergency and hospital stay.

The respondents opposed the request because two of them would be out of the country for the next three months, but did not oppose an adjournment to 2015.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment request, noting the medical documentation provided and the extraordinary circumstances, and directed that the hearing be rescheduled to 2015.

The applicant alleged age discrimination because the respondent denied him post-65 retirement benefits under a collective agreement note, as he was not yet 50 years old when the agreement was ratified.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the denial of post-65 benefits complies with the Employment Standards Act, 2000, and is therefore exempt from the Human Rights Code's prohibition on age discrimination under section 25(2.1).

The application was dismissed.

The applicant failed to comply with the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure and a subsequent Case Assessment Direction requiring the exchange and filing of documents and witness lists.

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

After the applicant missed the extended deadline and failed to communicate with the Tribunal, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant, who provides personal care for her son with a developmental disability, alleged that the respondent discriminated against them based on family status and association by not paying her for providing care.

At a summary hearing, the Tribunal found that the respondent only provides funding to corporations for personal care, not to individuals, regardless of family status.

The applications were dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.