Mary Truemner

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on pregnancy and age after her employer failed to reinstate her following a maternity leave.

The applicant also filed a concurrent claim under the Employment Standards Act (ESA) alleging reprisal for taking maternity leave.

The Tribunal found that the ESA claim dealt with substantially the same facts and issues, and that the remedies available under the ESA were similar to those under the Code.

To avoid adjudicative duplication and the risk of inconsistent findings, the Tribunal ordered that the human rights application be deferred pending the final conclusion of the ESA proceeding.

The respondent requested that the applicant's human rights application be deferred pending the conclusion of grievance and arbitration proceedings related to the termination of her employment.

The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the facts and allegations in the application and those in the grievances.

To avoid concurrent proceedings and the possibility of inconsistent decisions, the Tribunal determined that deferral was the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed.

The application was deferred pending the outcome of the grievance and arbitration proceedings.

The applicant requested to withdraw his human rights application two days prior to the scheduled hearing.

The respondent consented to the withdrawal but requested conditions, including a release, costs, and a statement denying wrongdoing.

The Tribunal granted the withdrawal without conditions, noting it lacks jurisdiction to award costs and finding no reason to depart from previous jurisprudence allowing unconditional withdrawals.

The applicants filed human rights applications alleging sexual harassment by a partner of the respondent hair salon.

Upon discovering the salon was a partnership and had ceased operations, the applicants requested to add the other partner, Paul Portelli, as a personal respondent.

The Tribunal applied the Smyth test and granted the request, finding that the allegations could support a Code violation against Portelli for failing to investigate or protect the applicants, and for reprisal.

Adding him was necessary to ensure any potential remedy could be enforced.

The applicant filed an application alleging disability discrimination and failure to accommodate by the respondent employer.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because the applicant had also filed grievances under a collective agreement based on the same facts and issues.

The Tribunal found that proceeding with the application could lead to inconsistent decisions and deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance proceedings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of family status after his employment was terminated following a one-year parental leave.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application had already been dealt with in a prior Employment Standards Act (ESA) claim.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the Employment Standards Officer had not addressed whether the termination was related to the applicant's family status, and therefore the ESA proceeding did not appropriately deal with the substance of the human rights application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, approximately six years after his employment was terminated.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss due to the delay.

The applicant argued the delay was caused by his visual impairment and a lack of readily available legal counsel in his town.

The Tribunal found these reasons did not constitute a good faith explanation for a six-year delay and dismissed the application as out of time.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application following a summary hearing.

The applicant alleged that the adjudicator treated him unfairly by not allowing him to make legal arguments and that the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5, as he did not provide new evidence, demonstrate a conflict with established jurisprudence, or show other factors outweighing the public interest in finality.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination based on race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, and ethnic origin.

The respondent filed a Request for Summary Hearing, which the Tribunal denied without reasons pursuant to Rule 19A.5.

The Tribunal also deferred deciding the applicant's request for document production until the parties filed their intended documents, and directed the scheduling of a case management conference call.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to employment and vocational associations because of disability.

The Tribunal directed the matter to a Summary Hearing to determine if the applicant could prove a link between the respondents' actions and the ground of disability.

At the Summary Hearing, the applicant requested to withdraw her application against all respondents.

The respondents consented, and the Tribunal granted the withdrawal, closing the file.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to services because of race and colour, arising from a billing dispute over a $31 childcare charge.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had no evidence, beyond mere supposition, to link the respondent's attempts to collect the disputed amount or its decision to discontinue childcare funding to her race or colour.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a Request to reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of an appeal under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act.

The respondents did not file a response to the Request.

The Tribunal granted the Request to reactivate the application and directed the respondents to file their Response within 30 days.

The applicant filed an application alleging reprisal and discrimination with respect to employment because of sex.

The Tribunal issued an Interim Decision directing the applicant to comply with Rule 16.1 and provide arguably relevant documents to the respondents, warning that failure to do so could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant failed to comply with the direction and the deadline passed.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant, a former police officer, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination, harassment, and reprisal in employment on the grounds of perceived ancestry and creed.

The respondents filed a Request for Summary Hearing.

The Tribunal denied the request without reasons pursuant to Rule 19A.5 and issued directions for the exchange of documents and submissions regarding the binding nature of findings of fact from a prior Police Services Act hearing.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Confirmation of Hearing directing the applicant to file and deliver documents and witness lists.

The applicant failed to comply.

The Tribunal subsequently issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring compliance within seven days, warning that failure to do so might result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant did not comply with the direction.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to services based on ancestry, ethnic origin, and age, as well as reprisal, primarily related to property and tax disputes with the respondent municipality.

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

Finding that the applicant had no evidence to link the respondents' alleged conduct to any Code-protected grounds or to reprisal, the Tribunal dismissed the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal, which was deferred pending a grievance arbitration.

Over three years after the grievance was withdrawn, the applicant requested to re-activate her application at the Tribunal.

The applicant argued the delay was due to her responsibilities caring for an autistic child and confusion over representation.

The Tribunal found these were not good reasons for the extraordinary delay and noted prejudice to the respondents.

The request to re-activate was denied and the application was dismissed.

The applicants requested to amend their human rights applications to add an allegation of reprisal, claiming the respondent co-operative announced they could not run for the Board of Directors due to their ongoing applications.

The respondents did not oppose the request but asked for particulars regarding the applicants' intentions to run for the Board.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, directing the applicants to provide the requested particulars.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability and reprisal regarding services provided by the respondent hospital.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the application failed to identify specific acts of discrimination connected to a Code ground.

The applicant's narrative described perceived unfairness and alleged that doctors lied about his mental state, but did not connect these actions to his disability or describe any reprisal.

The Tribunal found it plain and obvious that the application was beyond its jurisdiction and dismissed it at a preliminary stage.

The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination with respect to services because of disability and reprisal, claiming he was unfairly disqualified from Canada Pension Plan disability benefits.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the respondent appeared to be a federal entity and the Application failed to identify specific acts of discrimination.

The Tribunal found it plain and obvious that the Application raised no potential Code claim, as there was no link established between the denial of benefits and a Code ground, nor any description of reprisal.

The Application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.