Mary Truemner

The applicants, who both alleged discrimination regarding the accessibility of bus services in Northern Ontario, sought to consolidate their applications.

Ms. Buck also requested to add the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission as a respondent to her application, as it had already been added to Mr. Bondar's.

The Tribunal applied the Smyth test and granted the request to add the respondent, finding no prejudice.

The Tribunal also applied the Persaud factors and ordered the applications consolidated to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings and inconsistent results.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

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

When neither party complied, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction warning the applicant that failure to comply by a specified deadline could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to comply or communicate with the Tribunal by the deadline.

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

The applicant, who has severe rheumatoid arthritis, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination because the respondents (the landlord and the physiotherapy clinic) refused to install an automatic door.

The Tribunal found that the inaccessible door created a barrier and restricted the applicant's access to services and facilities.

Both respondents failed to accommodate the applicant's disability-related needs, instead pointing to each other as responsible.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to jointly pay $6,000 in general damages, install an automatic door, and ordered the landlord to undergo human rights training.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal after her position was eliminated and she was not interviewed for a newly-created role.

Her union had previously filed grievances regarding the same reorganization, which were resolved through a settlement and full release of claims under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued she signed the settlement under duress and that the application covered matters outside the grievances.

The Tribunal found the factual issues were the same and the elements of duress were not met.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal, poisoned environment, and discrimination based on sex and disability, stemming from a 2005 incident where she witnessed the former Executive Director sexually assault a colleague.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for delay, as the application was filed more than one year after the last alleged incident.

Following a preliminary hearing by teleconference, the Tribunal dismissed the allegations relating to the 2005 incident and the subsequent investigation as out of time.

The Tribunal directed an in-person preliminary hearing to determine whether the delay in filing the remaining allegations was incurred in good faith, whether the respondent would suffer substantial prejudice, and whether certain allegations have no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant, a male university student, alleged discrimination on the basis of sex and race after he refused to attend a Women & Gender Studies course because he was the only male student.

He claimed the professor's refusal to adjust the marking scheme to excuse him from class participation, her assignment of low marks, and her failure to post marks electronically constituted discrimination and reprisal.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success as the applicant's discomfort was a personal preference, not a need arising from his gender, and there was no evidence linking the respondent's actions to the prohibited grounds.

The respondent requested an adjournment of a scheduled three-day hearing because its newly retained counsel was unavailable.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the respondent's failure to retain counsel in a timely manner did not constitute an extraordinary circumstance justifying an adjournment under the Tribunal's Practice Direction.

The Tribunal also directed that the hearing venue be changed from North Bay to Toronto, noting the negligible difference in distance from the location of the alleged discrimination and the convenience for the parties and their counsel.

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 these directions and a subsequent Case Assessment Direction warning of dismissal.

As the applicant failed to file the required materials or communicate with the Tribunal, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The respondent requested that the human rights application alleging disability discrimination and reprisal be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing it was already dealt with by an Employment Standards Officer (ESO) under the Employment Standards Act (ESA).

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the ESO did not address the allegations regarding the failure to provide an insulin injection site at work, nor did the ESO address whether the applicant's disability-related absences in excess of the 10 days permitted by the ESA were a factor in his discipline and termination.

The applicant filed a human rights application which was deferred pending the completion of a grievance process.

After the grievance process concluded, the respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to reactivate the application, noting the arbitrator had fully resolved the human rights issues.

The applicant failed to respond to the request and a subsequent Case Assessment Direction.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application as abandoned.

The applicant had failed to file documents or attend a hearing due to illness and not receiving notice.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's delay in filing the reconsideration request was incurred in good faith due to his recovery from illness and lack of access to mail and email, and that the respondents suffered no substantial prejudice.

The reconsideration request was granted.

At the commencement of the hearing, the applicant requested to withdraw her human rights application against the personal respondent on consent.

The Tribunal granted the request and ordered the personal respondent removed as a party, amending the style of cause accordingly.

The applicant requested to amend her human rights application to remove references to damages for dismissal in order to pursue other causes of action in court.

The Tribunal initially granted the request without prejudice to the respondents.

The respondents subsequently requested an extension of time to respond, claiming they missed the request due to a spam filter.

The Tribunal treated this as a request for reconsideration but ultimately upheld its original decision, finding no current abuse of process or prejudice to the respondents, and noting that the respondents could raise jurisdictional arguments if the applicant pursued a claim in court.

The applicant requested that his personal information, specifically his email and home addresses, be redacted from the publicly available copies of a previous interim decision.

The respondents consented to the request.

The Tribunal, applying Rule 3.11 of its Rules of Procedure, found it appropriate to protect the confidentiality of the sensitive information and ordered the redaction.

The applicants filed human rights applications alleging discrimination and reprisal by the College of Physicians and Surgeons, the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB), and the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

The allegations stemmed from the handling of complaints against doctors, the joinder of complaints, and the disclosure of personal information.

Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed almost all allegations, finding they had no reasonable prospect of success, were barred by judicial immunity, or were inadmissible under section 36(3) of the Regulated Health Professions Act.

The Tribunal deferred dismissing one allegation regarding the College's alleged refusal to allow a complaint due to disability, directing the applicant to provide further particulars.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sex discrimination in employment against an individual respondent.

The individual respondent denied being the employer.

After being directed by the Tribunal, the individual respondent confirmed that a numbered company was the actual employer.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision adding the numbered company as a corporate respondent to the application to ensure a fair and expeditious resolution.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application as abandoned after he failed to attend a scheduled hearing.

The applicant argued he did not receive notice of the hearing due to severe mental health issues and because notice was improperly sent to his mother, who was not his legal representative.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not receive notice through no fault of his own.

However, because the reconsideration request was filed more than 30 days after the dismissal decision, the Tribunal directed the applicant to file an affidavit and medical evidence to establish that the delay was incurred in good faith.

The applicant filed two human rights applications against the respondents, alleging discrimination based on disability and reprisal.

The parties jointly requested to consolidate the applications and adjourn the hearing of the first application so both could be heard together.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the overlapping facts, identical parties, and convenience to witnesses justified consolidation and adjournment.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to amend her human rights application to remove all references to damages for dismissal and to add the Town of Fort Frances as a respondent.

The respondents did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request to remove references to damages, finding no prejudice to the respondents given the early stage of the proceedings.

The request to add the Town of Fort Frances as a respondent was deferred to the hearing.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking leave to amend his human rights application to include a claim for lost wages in the amount of $6,767.12.

The respondents did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the amendment did not raise issues of unfairness to the respondents.