Mary Truemner

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

A summary hearing was scheduled and notice was delivered to the applicant.

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

The respondents attended and requested dismissal.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant alleged reprisal and discrimination based on sex (pregnancy) and family status after her employer changed her shift following her maternity leave, which interfered with her childcare obligations.

The respondents requested dismissal under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter was dealt with under the Employment Standards Act.

At the preliminary hearing, the applicant withdrew the sex discrimination and reprisal allegations.

The Tribunal found the application included a family status accommodation claim and directed the respondents to confirm if they would pursue dismissal of that remaining allegation.

The applicant alleged that the College of Physicians and Surgeons discriminated against her on the basis of disability by refusing to accept her complaints against two doctors.

The College sought to dismiss the application at a summary hearing, arguing it had no reasonable prospect of success due to statutory immunity and the inadmissibility of its records under the Regulated Health Professions Act.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegation regarding the first doctor, finding that the necessary documents would be inadmissible.

However, the Tribunal allowed the allegation regarding the second doctor to proceed, as the applicant intended to rely on oral testimony about an investigator's statements, which is not barred by the Act.

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

Despite being warned that failure to comply could result in the dismissal of the application, the applicant did not file the required materials or communicate with the Tribunal by the final deadline.

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

The applicant requested an adjournment of the hearing, scheduled for September 25 and 26, 2014, due to difficulties obtaining missing medical documents.

The respondent consented to the adjournment.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that under its Practice Direction, adjournments outside the 14-day period are only granted in exceptional circumstances.

The Tribunal found the circumstances were not exceptional and directed that any prejudice to the respondent could be addressed by adjourning the hearing after the applicant testified in chief.

The applicant, a university student, alleged discrimination based on race and related grounds after a librarian recorded his computer number, and alleged reprisal after the university restricted his campus access following his complaints.

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

The Tribunal allowed the discrimination application to proceed, finding that if the applicant's allegations were proven, they could raise an inference of discrimination.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the reprisal application, as the applicant had not raised a Code issue prior to the alleged reprisal, meaning the university's actions could not constitute reprisal under section 8 of the Code.

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

The respondent requested early dismissal on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release after receiving legal advice, in exchange for a salary and benefits continuance.

The Tribunal found that the applicant made an informed choice to sign the release, which clearly encompassed claims under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal concluded that proceeding with the application would be an abuse of process and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability (gluten allergy) against a temporary employment agency.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed as untimely, as it was filed more than a year after the last alleged incident of discrimination.

The Tribunal found that the applicant ought to have known by April 2012 that the respondent was not going to accommodate her, triggering the one-year limitation period.

The Tribunal also found that the applicant's grief over her father's death did not constitute a good faith reason for the delay.

The application was dismissed as out of time.

The applicant filed two human rights applications against the respondents.

The Tribunal scheduled a summary hearing by teleconference to determine if the applications had no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing or communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the applications on the basis that they were deemed abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on sex and sexual orientation.

The applicant subsequently filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to add a representative, add a personal respondent, amend the application, file a late reply, and require document production.

At a preliminary hearing, the applicant withdrew the requests regarding the late reply and document production.

The respondents consented to the remaining requests.

The Tribunal granted the requests to add the representative, add the personal respondent, and amend the application on consent.

The applicant failed to comply with the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure regarding the exchange of documents and witness lists.

Despite a Case Assessment Direction warning that the application could be dismissed if she did not comply by a specified deadline, the applicant failed to file the required materials or communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application but failed to comply with the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure regarding the exchange and filing of documents and witness lists.

After missing the initial deadline, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction warning that the application could be dismissed if the required materials were not filed by a specified date.

The applicant failed to comply or communicate with the Tribunal.

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

The applicant failed to comply with the Tribunal's directions to provide documents, a witness list, and witness statements by the specified deadlines.

After being warned that failure to comply could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned, the applicant still did not file the required materials or communicate with the Tribunal.

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

The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application at a summary hearing.

The applicant argued that there were new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant was attempting to reargue the application and failed to demonstrate any new facts or evidence that could not have been obtained earlier.

The applicant requested to amend her human rights application to withdraw allegations that her termination was a reprisal, focusing instead on allegations of harassment and a poisoned environment.

She also sought to clarify language regarding how her culture affected her feelings about complaining to her employer.

The respondent consented to the deletions but objected to the additions.

The Tribunal granted the amendments, noting that no findings of discrimination were being made at this stage.

The Tribunal also directed the respondent to indicate whether it consented to the applicant's request for an adjournment due to a family medical emergency abroad.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

The applicant's counsel removed himself from the record prior to the hearing.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing on March 20, 2014, and did not communicate with the Tribunal to explain her absence.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision dismissing her human rights application as an abuse of process.

The original application was dismissed because the issues had been settled at the Grievance Settlement Board with a release prohibiting further claims.

The applicant argued that a recent breach of the Minutes of Settlement constituted new evidence.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that a breach of the settlement did not constitute new evidence relevant to the abuse of process finding, and noted that the remedy for any breach lies with the Grievance Settlement Board.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled three-day hearing because her newly retained representative was unavailable on the third day and needed more time to review the file.

The respondent opposed the request but consented to rescheduling the third day if necessary.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, noting that requests made outside the 14-day period require exceptional circumstances.

The Tribunal held that the unavailability of a representative or the need for more time to review the file did not meet this threshold.

The hearing was ordered to proceed on the first two scheduled days.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal directed the parties to exchange and file documents and witness lists prior to the hearing.

The applicant failed to comply with the initial deadlines and a subsequent Case Assessment Direction, which warned that failure to communicate would result in dismissal.

As the applicant did not file the required materials or communicate with the Tribunal, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a summary hearing scheduled by teleconference, citing medical reasons resulting from a motor vehicle accident.

The respondents opposed the request, suggesting accommodations such as breaks instead.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment as it was supported by medical documentation, but noted that any future requests must explain why participating by telephone with accommodations would not be possible.