Maureen Doyle

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

She subsequently sought to amend her application to include new allegations.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine the amendment request and whether the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal denied the request to amend, finding the applicant failed to provide a good faith explanation for the delay.

The Tribunal dismissed certain allegations for having no reasonable prospect of success, but allowed the allegations regarding discriminatory comments about age and place of origin, as well as the reprisal claim, to proceed.

The applicant filed multiple human rights applications against various respondents.

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

The applicant requested an adjournment to obtain documents, which was denied.

The applicant failed to attend the summary hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the applications as abandoned due to the applicant's failure to appear.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled summary hearing in order to obtain production of documents from the respondents.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that its Practice Direction requires exceptional circumstances for an adjournment.

Since the applicant is not required to call evidence at a summary hearing but only to indicate what evidence she will rely upon, the need for document production did not constitute an exceptional circumstance.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to amend her human rights application to add gender as a ground of discrimination, increase the general damages claimed to $25,000, and add a request for a public interest remedy regarding the respondent's appearance standards.

The respondent did not file a response.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the amendments did not change the nature of the matter or necessitate further evidence, and allowed the amendments to the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sex discrimination and reprisal by her employer and several individual respondents.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed multiple requests for orders during proceedings.

The Tribunal allowed the applicant to amend her application to include allegations regarding a February 2011 email but denied amendments for other untimely or unrelated allegations.

The Tribunal denied the applicant's request to anonymize her identity, finding no special circumstances to override the open justice principle.

The Tribunal also dismissed the employer's request to reconsider a previous decision refusing to add the union as a respondent, denied the employer's request to add the union president as a personal respondent, and declined to order the production of confidential union settlement minutes.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, and sex against her union and its president.

She claimed that a secret ballot vote was discriminatorily ordered to determine whether her grievance regarding her termination would proceed to arbitration.

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 respondents' actions to the prohibited grounds, noting that the union's decision to hold a secret ballot was based on the sensitive nature of the allegations against her.

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

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled Summary Hearing, arguing that he needed more time to respond to the respondents' materials, which he claimed contained misrepresentations.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the respondents had complied with the timeline for filing materials and that the applicant's disagreement with the respondents' position did not constitute exceptional circumstances warranting an adjournment.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his application for lack of jurisdiction, as the respondent is a federally regulated bank.

The applicant argued there were new facts and that the decision conflicted with established case law.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding the applicant failed to submit the request within the required time and did not establish any of the threshold criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

The respondent requested an adjournment of a scheduled summary hearing due to a scheduling conflict that arose for counsel.

The applicant consented to the adjournment.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that under its Practice Direction, adjournments are only granted in exceptional circumstances, even on consent.

The respondent failed to demonstrate any exceptional circumstances to justify the late adjournment request.

The respondent employer filed Requests for an Order During Proceedings to remove the individually named respondents and to consolidate two human rights applications filed by the applicant.

The Tribunal granted the request to remove the personal respondents, finding that the employer accepted vicarious liability and there was no compelling reason to keep them as parties.

The Tribunal also consolidated the two applications, noting significant overlap in facts and law, and finding no prejudice to the parties.

The union respondent requested an adjournment of a summary hearing because its counsel was required to attend an arbitration hearing on the same date.

The employer respondent consented to the request, and the applicant did not respond.

The Tribunal found that the circumstances justified a brief adjournment and directed the applicant to provide available dates for rescheduling.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates because a key witness would be out of the province.

The respondents consented to the request.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding that the unavailability of the witness did not constitute an exceptional circumstance under its Practice Direction.

The hearing was ordered to proceed as scheduled, with a later date to be fixed for the unavailable witness's testimony.

The applicant sought an adjournment of a scheduled Summary Hearing and requested the removal of the respondents' counsel, alleging a conflict of interest because the counsel's firm had previously represented the union in grievances where the applicant was the grievor.

The Tribunal denied the request to remove counsel, finding no solicitor-client relationship existed between the applicant and the union's counsel.

The Tribunal also denied the adjournment request, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify delaying the hearing.

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

The respondents filed a Request for Summary Hearing.

The applicant failed to respond to the request and failed to comply with the Tribunal's directions regarding the exchange of disclosure materials and witness lists.

After being warned that failure to comply could result in dismissal, the applicant still did not respond.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

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

The applicant failed to attend the hearing despite receiving proper notice.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming her employer and union failed to accommodate her sensitivity to scented products.

The respondent union and its representative requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application against them for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to attend the teleconference hearing despite receiving proper notice.

The Tribunal proceeded in her absence and dismissed the application against the union and its representative, finding no factual foundation or allegations of differential treatment that could establish a Code violation regarding the union's representation.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, place of origin, and ethnic origin, claiming he was wrongfully terminated following an inadequate investigation into an alleged altercation with a co-worker.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to identify any evidence that could establish a link between his termination or the employer's investigation and the prohibited grounds.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that several grocery store chains discriminated against him on the basis of creed by collecting a 'Kosher Tax' on food items.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish the existence of such a tax or demonstrate how he was treated differently from other customers based on his creed.

Concluding there was no reasonable prospect of success, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be deferred pending the completion of the applicant's Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) appeal.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability when the respondent failed to accommodate him and terminated his employment after a workplace injury.

The WSIB had previously determined that the modified work offered by the respondent was suitable.

The Tribunal considered the overlap in factual issues but noted that the WSIB proceedings would not consider human rights remedies or whether the dismissal violated the Code.

Furthermore, the WSIB appeal was only at its initial stages.

The Tribunal concluded that deferral would not be fair, just, and expeditious, and dismissed the request to defer.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by RBC Royal Bank on the basis of disability.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the respondent is a federally-regulated bank.

The applicant argued that the alleged discrimination occurred in Ontario and that the Canadian Human Rights Commission had declined to proceed with his complaint.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, holding that banking falls exclusively within federal jurisdiction under s. 91(15) of the Constitution Act, 1867, and therefore the Tribunal has no jurisdiction.