Maureen Doyle

The appellant appealed a school board decision confirming a Special Education Appeal Board (SEAB) placement of 'Regular Class with Resource Assistance' for a student with Autism Spectrum Disorder.

The appellant sought specific programs and services, including 1:1 support.

The Ontario Special Education Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the school board had already agreed to the requested placement, and the Tribunal's mandate under the Education Act does not extend to ordering specific programs or services.

The Tribunal also declined the respondent's request to declare the appellant a vexatious litigant.

The applicant filed an application alleging that the respondent reprised against him with respect to his employment, contrary to the Human Rights Code.

The applicant claimed he was threatened with job loss after raising health and safety concerns regarding the use of a chemical product without adequate personal protective equipment.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's allegations related to occupational health and safety, not to claiming or enforcing a right under the Code, and therefore did not fall within the Code's reprisal protections.

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

At the commencement of the hearing on the merits, after procedural matters and opening statements, the applicant requested to withdraw his application.

The respondent sought a withdrawal with prejudice, while the applicant sought it without prejudice.

The Tribunal granted permission for the applicant to withdraw the application without conditions, noting that if the applicant attempts to re-file, the respondent may raise objections at that time.

The respondent employer requested the early dismissal of an application alleging failure to accommodate a disability.

The respondent argued that a prior grievance settlement regarding shift hours dealt with the substance of the application, and that some allegations were untimely.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the grievance settlement did not address the core issue of discrimination based on disability.

The Tribunal also declined to dismiss any allegations for delay at this preliminary stage, directing the respondent to file a substantive response.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability by his employer, a police services board.

The applicant had also filed a concurrent grievance through his union regarding workplace harassment based on the same underlying facts.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the outcome of the grievance process.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding significant factual overlap between the two proceedings and noting that deferral avoids simultaneous proceedings and conflicting determinations.

The applicant in a human rights complaint sought to amend her Application to increase the financial compensation claimed from $25,000 to $323,000.

The respondent objected, arguing the amount was excessive.

The Tribunal granted the amendment, noting that there was no prejudice to the respondent, who would have the opportunity to make submissions on the appropriate remedy at the hearing.

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

A preliminary hearing was scheduled by teleconference, and notice was provided to the applicant.

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

Consequently, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant alleged the respondent breached Minutes of Settlement regarding his Employment Insurance benefits.

The respondent sought production of documents relating to the applicant's EI application, mitigation efforts, and his Service Canada file.

The Tribunal granted the production request, finding the documents arguably relevant to the issues of damages and whether the respondent breached its obligations under the settlement.

The applicant alleged that the corporate respondent breached Minutes of Settlement regarding his Record of Employment and dealings with Service Canada.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal removed the personal respondent from the proceeding, as the corporate respondent was deemed liable and there was no compelling reason to keep him as a party.

The Tribunal allowed the applicant to amend his application to add particulars regarding the alleged breach, but denied his request to add new allegations of breaches of other settlement provisions due to delay.

The Tribunal also granted the respondent's request to convert the hearing on the merits to an in-person hearing.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his application alleging discrimination in hiring based on ethnic origin.

The applicant argued that he was discriminated against because he was interviewed over the telephone rather than in person.

The Tribunal found that the applicant merely repeated arguments already made and failed to present new evidence or demonstrate a conflict with established jurisprudence.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

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

The respondent requested that allegations prior to June 2014 be dismissed as untimely and sought a summary hearing.

The applicant requested to amend her application to add two allegations of reprisal relating to a forced medical leave and subsequent termination.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations prior to June 2014, finding they did not form a series of incidents with the timely allegations.

The Tribunal allowed the applicant's amendments to add the reprisal allegations, finding no substantial prejudice to the respondent.

The respondent's request for a summary hearing was denied.

The applicant in a human rights application alleging racial discrimination filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking production of all email communications between himself and his supervisor over a six-month period.

The respondent objected, arguing the request was a fishing expedition and that relevant emails had already been provided.

The Tribunal applied the arguable relevance test and ordered the respondent to produce all emails sent by the applicant to the supervisor during the specified period, along with any responses, as they were arguably relevant to the applicant's allegation that the supervisor failed to respond to his emails.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his application alleging discrimination on the basis of race or colour at school.

The applicant argued the decision conflicted with established case law and failed to address certain allegations.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was attempting to re-argue his case and had not met the threshold criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the respondent in delaying the issuance of his engineering licence.

The events in question occurred prior to 2013, but the application was not filed until October 2016.

The applicant had previously commenced a civil action against the respondent in 2013, which was dismissed on summary judgment.

The Tribunal found that the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal rejected the applicant's argument that he delayed filing because he was waiting for evidence from the civil proceeding or because he believed he could not pursue both proceedings simultaneously.

The application was dismissed as untimely.

The applicant sought to amend her human rights applications against the respondent condominium corporation to add an allegation of reprisal and to request additional remedies.

The respondents objected to the reprisal amendment but had already provided a response and relevant documents.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, finding no prejudice to the respondents and noting that the amendment would not appreciably lengthen the hearing.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates because carriage of the matter was transferred to new counsel who had a scheduling conflict.

The applicant opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding that the respondent had been aware of the hearing dates for several months and that retaining or assigning new counsel late in the process did not constitute exceptional circumstances justifying an adjournment.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision dismissing his application for abandonment after he failed to attend a summary hearing.

The applicant argued he did not receive notice of the hearing through no fault of his own, as he could not open an email attachment with call-in instructions.

The Tribunal found the applicant had been mailed the notice to his provided address and failed to make appropriate inquiries about the email attachment.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant, a university student, alleged age discrimination after her landlord, a university housing organization, increased her rent beyond the provincial guideline.

The landlord relied on an exemption in the Residential Tenancies Act for student housing.

The Tribunal found the application was filed in a timely manner but dismissed it as having no reasonable prospect of success, noting the applicant challenged the legislation itself rather than the landlord's actions, and the landlord could not be held liable for the legislation.

The applicant alleged she was subjected to sexual harassment, inappropriate touching, and discriminatory termination by her store manager.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence regarding the touching, ongoing harassment, and discriminatory termination to be unreliable and dismissed those allegations, finding her termination was due to poor sales performance.

However, the Tribunal found that the store manager's comment to the applicant that 'the shorter the skirt the better, and show cleavage' in response to a dress code inquiry constituted discrimination on the basis of sex.

The Tribunal awarded $3,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and ordered the manager to undergo human rights training.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to amend the Application, an extension of time, and production of documents.

The Tribunal denied the request to amend as the proposed amendment was unclear.

The Tribunal interpreted the extension of time as an adjournment request and the document production as seeking time to obtain documents from a third party.

Finding the documents unnecessary for the upcoming preliminary hearing, the Tribunal directed the hearing to proceed as scheduled and ordered the parties to provide a copy of a relevant court order.