Maureen Doyle

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex after her employment was terminated while she was eight months pregnant.

Prior to the application, her union had filed a grievance regarding the termination, which proceeded to arbitration.

The arbitrator found insufficient evidence of discrimination based on sex or race.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing and dismissed the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, finding that the grievance arbitration had appropriately dealt with the substance of the human rights allegations.

The applicant filed an Application alleging age discrimination in employment against her employer, Costco Wholesale, and her manager, the individual respondent.

The respondents requested the removal of the individual respondent as a party.

The Tribunal applied the factors from Persaud and found that the corporate respondent would be liable for the individual respondent's conduct in the course of his employment.

Finding no compelling juridical reason to keep the individual respondent as a party, the Tribunal granted the request and removed him from the proceeding.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex, claiming her hours were reduced and she was terminated because she was pregnant.

The respondents requested dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter was already addressed by the Ministry of Labour.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's prior Employment Standards Act complaint for reprisal had appropriately dealt with the substance of her allegations regarding the reduction of hours and termination.

Applying the principles from Figliola, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to reactivate his human rights application against the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board.

The application had been deferred pending the outcome of another Tribunal proceeding that addressed whether the WSIB provided a service within the meaning of the Code.

As that proceeding had concluded, the Tribunal found no basis to continue the deferral and ordered the application reactivated, directing the respondent to identify any preliminary issues.

The applicants, children with disabilities attending a private school, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability because they did not receive certain educational supports funded by the respondents.

The respondents requested dismissal of the application, arguing it had no reasonable prospect of success given the Divisional Court's decision in Cooper v. Ontario, which held that O. Reg. 386/99 is not discriminatory.

The Tribunal agreed, finding it was bound by the Divisional Court's determination that the regulation does not discriminate on the basis of disability.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The respondents requested a summary hearing, which the Tribunal scheduled to proceed by telephone.

Despite receiving notice and being directed on how to request an adjournment with medical documentation, the applicant failed to attend the hearing or provide further communication.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The personal respondents brought a Request for Order During Proceedings to be removed as parties to the human rights application and to add their employer, York University, as the sole respondent.

The applicant, a student alleging discrimination in services on the basis of race following a dispute with another student, made no submissions on the request.

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal found that the personal respondents were acting in the course of their employment, York University did not object to being named, and there was no issue as to the university's vicarious liability or ability to remedy the alleged infringement.

The Tribunal granted the request, removing the personal respondents and adding York University.

The corporate respondent requested reconsideration of an interim decision that denied its requests to add the union and its president as respondents, and to order the production of Minutes of Settlement.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the decision regarding document production was interlocutory and not a final decision subject to reconsideration.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the respondent failed to establish any of the threshold criteria for reconsidering the refusal to add the union president as a party, as the submissions merely re-argued issues already decided.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, specifically regarding a failure to accommodate a workplace injury.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application because the applicant was also appealing a WSIB decision regarding the termination of her healthcare benefits.

The applicant objected to the deferral.

The Tribunal found that the WSIB proceeding was at an embryonic stage, dealt primarily with medical benefits rather than accommodation, and would not likely resolve the human rights issues.

Therefore, the Tribunal declined to defer the application.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in the provision of goods, services, and facilities.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction noting that the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction, as one respondent was federally regulated and the allegations against the others lacked specific acts of discrimination.

The applicant was directed to provide written submissions on jurisdiction but failed to respond.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that his union discriminated against him on the basis of disability by failing to file grievances and adequately represent him regarding workplace injuries and accommodation.

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

The Tribunal found that while the applicant disagreed with the union's representation decisions, he provided no evidence linking those decisions to his disability.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, noting that complaints about the adequacy of union representation without evidence of discrimination fall under the duty of fair representation jurisdiction of the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 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 summary hearing despite receiving proper notice.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed as abandoned.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application but subsequently passed away.

The Tribunal contacted the applicant's estate to determine its intentions regarding the continuation of the application.

After the estate failed to respond to multiple communications, including a Case Assessment Direction, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant, a former insurance broker, alleged that the provincial regulatory body discriminated against him on the basis of race, colour, place of origin, and ethnic origin.

He claimed that the regulator disciplined him but did not discipline Caucasian brokers in similar circumstances, and that it unfairly enforced its 'two market' requirement.

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 identify any evidence that would establish a link between the regulator's actions and the alleged prohibited grounds of discrimination.

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

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of race, place of origin, ethnic origin, association, and reprisal.

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

The Tribunal found that most of the allegations were untimely and lacked a reasonable prospect of success, as the applicant failed to point to evidence linking the alleged events to a protected ground.

However, the Tribunal allowed specific allegations regarding a workplace discussion about immigrants, the extension of a contract, and a disciplinary letter to proceed, as they could not be dismissed at the summary stage.

The applicant filed a human rights application which was placed in abeyance pending the completion of a lead case.

After the lead case was dismissed, the Tribunal directed the applicant to advise whether he intended to proceed with his application.

The applicant failed to respond by the deadline.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

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

The matter was placed in abeyance pending the resolution of a lead case.

Following the dismissal of the lead case, the Tribunal directed the applicant to confirm his intention to proceed.

The applicant failed to respond by the specified deadline.

As a result, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application which was placed in abeyance pending the completion of a lead case.

Following the dismissal of the lead case, the Tribunal directed the applicant to advise whether he intended to proceed with his application.

The applicant failed to respond by the deadline.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

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

The Tribunal placed the file in abeyance pending the completion of a lead case.

After the lead case was dismissed, the Tribunal directed the applicant to advise whether he intended to proceed with the application.

The applicant failed to respond by the deadline.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code, which was placed in abeyance pending the resolution of a lead case.

After the lead case was dismissed, the Tribunal directed the applicant to confirm his intention to proceed.

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's correspondence.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.