Maureen Doyle

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to employment and housing on the basis of race, colour, and record of offences by the respondent, Ontario Works.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to point to any evidence linking the respondent's alleged actions to the cited grounds of discrimination.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment more than one year after the last alleged incident.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed as untimely.

The applicant claimed the delay was due to post-traumatic stress and advice from his lawyer to wait until he was mentally stable.

The Tribunal found the applicant provided no medical evidence to substantiate his condition and noted he had actively engaged a lawyer and negotiated with the respondent during the delay period.

The Tribunal concluded the delay was not incurred in good faith and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex and pregnancy, as well as reprisal, following the termination of her employment.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because the applicant had also filed a claim under the Employment Standards Act regarding the same termination.

The Tribunal found that the circumstances giving rise to both proceedings were substantially the same and that proceeding concurrently could lead to inconsistent findings.

The Tribunal ordered the application deferred until the Employment Standards Act proceeding is concluded or abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by her former employer and union, more than ten years after the last alleged incident.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss due to the application being filed outside the one-year statutory time limit.

The applicant argued that health issues prevented her from filing on time.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had taken numerous other legal steps during the delay period, indicating she was capable of asserting her rights.

The Tribunal concluded the delay was not incurred in good faith and dismissed the application as untimely.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking early disclosure of documents referenced in the respondents' Response, arguing they were necessary to file a Reply.

The respondents objected, arguing the request was premature.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that its Rules of Procedure provide for document exchange later in the process and that early production is only ordered in exceptional circumstances, which were not present here.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The respondents subsequently informed the Tribunal that the applicant had died.

The Tribunal directed the applicant's Estate Trustee to confirm their status and intention to continue the application.

When the Estate Trustee failed to respond by the deadline, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The union requested intervenor status in a human rights application filed by an employee against the employer alleging discrimination based on disability and sex.

The union argued it had an interest in the outcome, as remedies could impact the union and affect a related grievance.

As no parties objected, the Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene, allowing it to receive materials, attend mediation, and participate in the hearing to an extent to be determined by the presiding adjudicator.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of disability, claiming harassment during disability leave and failure to accommodate.

The respondent requested deferral of the application pending the outcome of the applicant's WSIB appeal regarding initial entitlement to benefits.

The Tribunal denied the deferral request, finding that the WSIB appeal focused on causation of the injury, while the human rights application focused on alleged discrimination and failure to accommodate, meaning the subject matters were distinct.

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

The respondent failed to file a Response within the required timeframe, despite requesting and being granted an extension.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondent to file a Response within 7 days, along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice to the respondent.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to anonymize the application due to privacy and safety concerns related to being stalked.

The respondent opposed the request, citing the importance of open justice.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the applicant's safety concerns regarding her stalker outweighed the open justice principle in these circumstances.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on sex slightly more than one year after the last alleged incident.

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

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice but had previously explained the delay was due to caring for her terminally ill mother, having a child, and her fiancé's job loss.

The Tribunal found that while these were understandable reasons for not filing immediately, the applicant did not provide a reasonable explanation for failing to file within the one-year period, especially since she stated the application was prepared prior to the deadline.

The application was dismissed as the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of an Interim Decision that dismissed parts of her human rights application alleging workplace discrimination and reprisal.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish any new facts or evidence, conflict with established jurisprudence, or other factors outweighing the public interest in finality.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant filed two human rights applications alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability against a temporary staffing agency and two pharmacy chains.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction to determine whether the applications should be consolidated.

Applying the factors for consolidation, the Tribunal found that the applications involved identical allegations, common issues of fact and law, and overlapping remedies.

Despite the applicant's objection regarding an imbalance of legal representation, the Tribunal ordered the applications consolidated to avoid multiple proceedings and inconsistent results.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability, seeking reinstatement and workplace accommodation training.

The applicant's certified bargaining agent, the Canadian Union of Public Employees and its Local 1072, filed a Request to Intervene on the basis that the requested remedies could impact its bargaining unit members.

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 in employment based on disability.

The union representing the applicant's workplace requested intervenor status to defend its interests, as the requested remedies could impact bargaining unit members.

The Tribunal granted the union intervenor status.

Additionally, the applicant requested to amend her application to include subsequent interactions with the employer regarding medical information and to update her requested remedies.

The Tribunal allowed the amendments, noting they were timely, related to the original allegations, and caused no prejudice to the respondent.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and failure to accommodate his disability at work.

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

The Tribunal noted its general practice of deferring applications where an ongoing grievance process has the authority to address the human rights claims.

Finding substantial overlap between the application and the grievance, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process.

The applicant filed an application alleging contravention of a settlement under section 45.9(3) of the Human Rights Code.

A summary hearing was scheduled to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing despite receiving proper notice and exchanging emails with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant, an 88-year-old volunteer denturist, alleged age discrimination after the respondent terminated his volunteer clinical services.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed.

The Tribunal found that while the respondent's communication regarding privacy and insurance concerns was poor, the applicant provided no evidence linking the termination of his volunteer role to his age.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination by his union and a union representative regarding work assignments and a comment that certain work was a 'young man's job'.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal dismissed the first allegation regarding a 2008/2009 work assignment due to delay, finding it was not part of a series of incidents and no good faith reason for the delay was provided.

The Tribunal dismissed the remaining allegations as having no reasonable prospect of success, as the applicant provided no evidence that the individual respondent had discretion over work assignments, and the single alleged comment was not sufficiently extreme to constitute harassment or discrimination.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to amend his human rights Application to add an allegation of reprisal, specifically that the individual respondent uttered death threats against him for filing the Application.

He also sought permission to file a late Reply.

The Tribunal granted both requests, finding that the reprisal allegation flowed directly from the original discrimination claims and was timely, and that allowing the brief late Reply would facilitate an accessible process without prejudicing the respondents.