Maureen Doyle

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

A preliminary hearing was scheduled by teleconference.

The applicant's representative withdrew prior to the hearing.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability (PTSD) and reprisal.

The respondents requested dismissal of allegations relating to incidents that occurred more than one year prior to the application.

The Tribunal found that allegations prior to December 2009 did not form part of a series of events with the timely allegations and that the delay in filing was not incurred in good faith.

Consequently, the untimely allegations were dismissed.

La requérante, une enseignante, a déposé une requête alléguant de la discrimination en matière d'emploi fondée sur le lieu d'origine, la croyance, l'âge et des représailles.

Le Tribunal a tenu une audience sommaire pour déterminer si la requête avait une chance raisonnable d'être accueillie.

Le Tribunal a conclu que la requérante n'avait présenté aucune preuve permettant d'établir un lien entre les actions des intimés et les motifs de discrimination invoqués.

La requête a été rejetée dans son intégralité.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability and age.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed the applicant's request for document disclosure and an adjournment.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to disclose any blank job application forms from the relevant time period.

However, the Tribunal denied the applicant's request to adjourn the hearing to obtain medical evidence, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify the late request.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code alleging discrimination in housing based on family status and age.

A hearing was scheduled, and notice was provided to both parties.

Neither party attended the hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned due to the applicant's failure to attend.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding alleging employment discrimination and reprisal brought a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking production of emails, job applications of other employees, and meeting notes.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to produce the meeting notes if they could be located, as the respondent conceded their potential relevance.

The Tribunal dismissed the requests for the emails, which no longer existed, and the job applications, which were deemed not arguably relevant to the specific allegations of reprisal remaining in the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to services because of disability and sex, after the WSIB denied him benefits for a psychological condition.

The WSIB had applied its policy requiring a psychotraumatic disability to become manifest within five years of the injury.

The applicant argued the policy discriminated against men, who experience and report depression differently than women.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding it had no reasonable prospect of success because the applicant's core argument was a factual dispute that the WSIB had misapplied its policy to his case, rather than a claim that the policy itself had an adverse impact on him.

The applicant, a teacher, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal by his employer and union.

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

The Tribunal dismissed all allegations prior to February 2009 as untimely.

It also dismissed the reprisal allegations, finding that whistleblowing is not protected under the Code.

The allegations against the union were dismissed for lack of evidence of differential treatment.

The only surviving issue was the employer's alleged failure to accommodate the applicant's back disability in 2010, which was deferred pending a union grievance.

The union, as the certified bargaining agent, requested to intervene in a human rights application filed by an employee against the employer.

The union argued that potential remedies could impact bargaining unit members' seniority rights, policies, and training.

As neither the applicant nor the respondent opposed the request, the Tribunal granted the union intervenor status.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of family status, age, association, and reprisal, related to the employer's failure to accommodate her need to care for her son with a disability.

The applicant had also filed concurrent union grievances based on the same facts.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process, noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority and responsibility to enforce human rights obligations.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability after his employer refused to reinstate him following his resignation.

The respondent employer requested that the application be deferred because the applicant's union had filed a grievance based on the same facts and human rights issues.

The Tribunal noted its normal practice of deferring applications where a concurrent grievance proceeding can address the human rights issues.

Finding substantial overlap and no objections, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment.

The Tribunal directed the parties to file witness lists, statements, and documents pursuant to Rules 16 and 17.

The applicant failed to comply with these directions and a subsequent Case Assessment Direction warning that the application might be dismissed as abandoned.

Due to the applicant's failure to respond or comply, the Tribunal found the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal regarding his return to work.

The respondent employer filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to defer the application pending the outcome of a concurrent union grievance filed on the applicant's behalf.

The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the facts and human rights issues in both proceedings.

Noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority to enforce human rights obligations, and absent any submissions opposing the request, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex in relation to her return to work from maternity leave, specifically regarding disciplinary sanctions.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant's union had filed concurrent grievances based on the same facts.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process, noting the substantial overlap between the facts and human rights issues in both proceedings.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates due to the unavailability of her recently retained counsel.

The respondent requested that the hearing be conducted by teleconference to avoid travel expenses.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify it, as the applicant had failed to provide the Notice of Hearing to her counsel in a timely manner.

The Tribunal also denied the request for a teleconference hearing, noting that the matter involved several witnesses and the respondent had not established a Code-related need or other sufficient reason to avoid attending in person.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to housing on the basis of race, colour, creed, receipt of public assistance, association, and reprisal.

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

The applicant alleged that the respondent co-operative housing provider failed to properly maintain her unit, charged excessive housing fees, and treated black residents worse than white residents regarding repairs.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to point to evidence that could establish a link between the respondent's alleged actions and the prohibited grounds of discrimination.

The application was dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to amend a paragraph in their Response regarding statistics related to MA and PhD applications.

The applicant did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting that the amendment was minor, the proceedings had not yet advanced to a hearing, and the applicant would have the opportunity to file an amended Reply.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment based on ethnic origin, disability, family status, and reprisal.

At a hearing, the Tribunal issued a consent order adding Canada Bread Company Limited as a respondent to the proceeding and amending the style of cause accordingly.

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

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application had been appropriately dealt with in a prior civil proceeding for wrongful dismissal.

The Tribunal found that the civil court had already made findings regarding the applicant's termination and competency, and dismissed those portions of the application to prevent relitigation.

However, the Tribunal allowed the application to proceed regarding allegations of discriminatory comments and a poisoned work environment, as these were not raised or considered in the civil action.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to add an employee of the corporate respondent as an individual respondent to her human rights application.

The Tribunal applied the principles from Sigrist and Carson v. London District Catholic School Board, noting that adding personal respondents is discouraged where the corporate respondent is deemed liable and capable of remedying the alleged infringement.

Finding no compelling juridical reason to add the individual, the Tribunal denied the request.