Mary Truemner

In an application alleging reprisal and discrimination in employment on the basis of sex, the respondents filed several interim requests.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide particulars regarding the identity of a 'boss' who allegedly made a discriminatory comment.

The respondents' request to remove the personal respondent was deferred pending receipt of the particulars.

The respondents' request for an early witness list was denied as premature.

The applicant was also directed to immediately comply with document disclosure rules or face potential dismissal of the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on place of origin.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to have been filed more than one year after the last alleged incident.

The applicant provided submissions clarifying that the last incident occurred on April 30, 2012, within the one-year period.

The Tribunal found it was not clear and obvious that the application was out of time and directed that processing continue and the application be served on the respondents.

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to remove the personal respondents from the human rights application, noting that the corporate respondent assumed responsibility for any remedy.

The applicant consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request and amended the style of cause accordingly.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination in employment while simultaneously pursuing a civil court action based on the same facts.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss under s. 34(11) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant subsequently requested to withdraw his application to continue with his court matter.

The Tribunal granted the request and the application was withdrawn.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction proposing to consolidate two applications involving similar facts and legal issues.

As no party objected, the Tribunal ordered the applications consolidated and directed that mediation be scheduled.

The applicant filed a human rights application while a concurrent union grievance proceeding involving the same facts and issues was ongoing.

The respondents and the union supported deferring the application.

The Tribunal exercised its discretion to defer the application pending the completion of the grievance process, noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority to apply human rights law and that deferral serves the orderly administration of justice.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment.

The respondent Town of Fort Frances requested to be removed as a party, arguing it was merely the sole shareholder of the respondent Fort Frances Power Corporation and had no employment relationship with the applicant.

The Tribunal denied the request at this preliminary stage, noting the applicant's assertion that her pay cheques and benefits came from the Town, and held that the Town could renew its request with evidentiary support if mediation failed.

The personal respondent requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found against him and the corporate respondent for sexual harassment and reprisal.

He argued he did not receive notice of the hearing.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the respondent had received fair warning that failing to respond could result in the Tribunal proceeding without notice, and that he had failed to update his address with the Tribunal.

The Tribunal also found no conflict with established jurisprudence or procedure.

The applicant filed an Application alleging reprisal in employment.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the narrative did not appear to relate to specific acts of reprisal under the Human Rights Code.

In written submissions, the applicant clarified that she was terminated after complaining about sexual harassment and discrimination based on sex, family status, and age.

The Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the Application was outside its jurisdiction and permitted the applicant to amend the Application to include the additional grounds.

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

As the deadline passed without compliance, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to be filed outside the one-year limitation period.

The Tribunal determined that because the one-year deadline fell on a statutory holiday (Good Friday), the application filed on the following Sunday was timely under Rule 1.10 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The Tribunal directed that the application be delivered to the respondents.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination regarding his eligibility for post-65 retirement benefits under a collective agreement.

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 been dealt with in prior grievance arbitrations, or alternatively, that it should be dismissed for res judicata, issue estoppel, or abuse of process.

The Tribunal denied the requests, finding that the applicant was not a party to the prior arbitrations and that the prior proceedings did not appropriately deal with the human rights issues.

However, the Tribunal scheduled a summary hearing to address whether the application had no reasonable prospect of success due to the s. 25(2.1) exemption for age-based benefit plans and whether the application was premature.

The applicant, a former teacher, filed a human rights application against her union and several of its representatives, alleging discrimination based on disability and reprisal.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal found that most of the allegations were filed outside the one-year limitation period without a good faith explanation for the delay.

The remaining timely allegations, which primarily concerned the union's withdrawal of a termination grievance and alleged manipulation of long-term disability benefits, were dismissed because the applicant failed to point to any evidence linking the union's actions to her disability or establishing an intention to reprise.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code due to a concurrent civil action.

The applicant argued that the civil action was proceeding slowly and that the Tribunal might provide better remedies.

The Tribunal found that these reasons did not outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions and did not meet the threshold criteria for reconsideration.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicants filed applications alleging sexual harassment by the personal respondent during their employment.

The respondents failed to appear at the hearing.

The Tribunal granted the applicants' unopposed requests to amend their applications to correct drafting errors and add a claim of reprisal.

The Tribunal also granted a request to correct the personal respondent's name.

Finally, the Tribunal granted an adjournment to allow the applicants to personally serve a potential additional respondent who may have been a partner in the organizational respondent's business.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the City of Brantford, the Brantford Police Service, and the Children's Aid Society of Brant.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations against the Children's Aid Society and one allegation against the City of Brantford for lacking a reasonable prospect of success.

The remaining allegations against the City of Brantford and the Brantford Police Service were permitted to proceed, and those respondents were directed to file full responses.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing based on race, colour, family status, and receipt of public assistance.

The respondent requested early dismissal under s. 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the applicant had commenced a civil proceeding in Small Claims Court based on the same factual context.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the civil claim did not seek human rights remedies or rely on Code-related claims, and therefore s. 34(11) did not apply to bar the application at this stage.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on age, ethnicity, and place of origin.

The Tribunal previously dismissed the ethnicity and place of origin claims for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to confirm her intention to proceed with the age discrimination claim and provide reasons.

The applicant failed to respond to the direction.

The Tribunal found the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a summary hearing in order to retain legal counsel.

The respondents opposed the request, noting the applicant had already been granted a previous adjournment for the same reason.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant had ample opportunity to retain counsel and that failure to do so in a timely manner does not constitute an extraordinary circumstance warranting an adjournment under the Tribunal's Practice Direction.

The applicant alleged discrimination, harassment, and reprisal in employment on the basis of race, colour, place of origin, and creed.

He testified that a co-worker subjected him to racial slurs and religious harassment, and that he was subsequently laid off.

The Tribunal found that the co-worker's conduct constituted harassment under the Human Rights Code, but dismissed the claim against the co-worker because his full name was unknown.

The claim against the corporate respondent was dismissed because section 46.3(1) of the Code exempts corporations from vicarious liability for workplace harassment by employees.

The reprisal claim was also dismissed due to a lack of evidence connecting the layoff to the applicant's human rights.