Maureen Doyle

The corporate respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to amend its response to correct typing errors, provide further detail regarding timeliness and communication, and add to its list of relevant documents.

The applicant consented on the condition that the respondents deliver their lists of arguably relevant documents and that the applicant be permitted to file an amended reply.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding the amendments would not change the nature of the inquiry and that the conditions addressed any potential prejudice to the applicant.

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

A hearing was scheduled and notice was sent to the parties.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing and provided no explanation.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination in employment.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the narrative failed to identify specific acts of discrimination.

The applicant provided written submissions clarifying that she had requested accommodation from TAL Group and was notified that Shoppers Drug Mart denied the request.

The Tribunal found the clarification sufficient to identify the alleged acts of discrimination and directed that the Application continue.

The applicant requested to re-activate her human rights application following the conclusion of an academic appeal.

The respondents agreed to the re-activation but argued the applicant's Reply was improper and an abuse of process.

The Tribunal granted the request to re-activate the application and found the Reply was not an abuse of process, though it permitted the respondents to file a Supplementary Response regarding a new allegation of failure to investigate.

The Tribunal also directed the parties to provide written submissions on whether the application was filed within the statutory time limits under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability against her employer, a management company, and the WSIB.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss regarding jurisdiction and delay.

The Tribunal dismissed the claims against the WSIB, finding that the adjudicative decisions of a statutory tribunal do not constitute "services" under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal also dismissed the allegations relating to the applicant's first workplace injury as they were filed outside the one-year limitation period without a good faith explanation for the delay.

The applicant was ordered to provide further particulars regarding her remaining allegations of failure to accommodate following her second injury.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing and a six-month deferral of his human rights application to explore a civil action, class action, and grievance under a collective agreement.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request because the applicant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances as required by the Practice Direction.

The Tribunal also denied the deferral request because there was no ongoing grievance or other legal proceeding to defer to, and the matter was already at an advanced stage.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in the provision of social assistance benefits.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the application pending a Social Benefits Tribunal (SBT) appeal and whether to remove several individually named respondents.

The Tribunal declined to defer the application because the SBT matter had concluded.

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal removed the personal respondents, finding that the corporate respondent was liable and capable of responding to the allegations.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant's premature request for document production and his request for an order directing the Human Rights Legal Support Centre to provide him with legal services.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of reprisal, claiming he was subjected to harassment, discipline, and termination after raising concerns about water quality at his workplace.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting the application appeared outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to explain how the respondent's actions were linked to claiming or enforcing a right under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction to inquire into general claims of unfairness not tied to Code grounds and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking the last known address of the personal respondent, production of documents, particulars, and an extension of time to file her Reply.

The corporate respondent consented to providing the address and took no position on the extension of time, but opposed the request for production and particulars as premature.

The Tribunal ordered the corporate respondent to provide the address, granted the extension of time, and denied the request for production and particulars as premature, noting that the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure provide for document exchange prior to the hearing.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed her application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant alleged discrimination by her dental office regarding billing and quality of service.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet any of the threshold criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5, as she presented no new determinative evidence, no conflict with established jurisprudence, and no other factors outweighing the public interest in finality.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and age after being reassigned from a canine handler position to administrative duties.

The applicant's association, the Ontario Provincial Police Association, requested to intervene regarding public interest remedies.

The Tribunal granted the association's request to intervene.

The Tribunal also deferred the respondent's request to dismiss the Application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code to the first scheduled day of the hearing.

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

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

The applicant failed to attend the hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming the respondent terminated his employment rather than accommodating his workplace injury.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed or deferred because the applicant had a concurrent proceeding before the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding an Employment Standards Act claim for termination pay.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code because the other proceeding was not yet complete.

However, the Tribunal deferred the application, finding that the significant factual overlap between the two proceedings warranted deferral to avoid duplication of evidence and inconsistent findings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging his employment was terminated because he intended to claim WSIB benefits for a workplace injury.

The respondent employer requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the outcome of the applicant's WSIB appeal regarding initial entitlement.

The Tribunal declined to defer the application, finding that the WSIB proceeding focused on causation of the injury rather than whether the termination was discriminatory, and noting that the WSIB appeal was not far advanced.

The applicant requested that his human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability be deferred pending the completion of his appeal before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT).

The Tribunal found that the suitability of modified work and the obligation to accommodate were central to both proceedings, and that the WSIAT's determination regarding Loss of Earnings benefits could affect potential damages.

The Tribunal granted the request and deferred the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment in employment on the basis of race, colour, sex, and reprisal.

The applicant had also filed concurrent grievances through her union regarding the same allegations.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the resolution of the grievance process.

Despite the applicant's objections regarding delay, the Tribunal found substantial overlap between the application and the grievances and deferred the application in accordance with its normal practice, noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority to enforce human rights obligations.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that the respondent police service discriminated against her on the basis of race and perceived disability.

The applicant claimed that a police report describing her as a 'black woman' and referencing public mischief was generated because the police perceived her to have a mental illness.

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 could establish a link between the police report and her race or perceived disability.

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

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled teleconference hearing before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

The Tribunal waited 30 minutes before terminating the hearing.

Satisfied that the applicant had notice of the hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the application due to non-attendance.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application after she failed to attend the final day of the hearing.

The applicant argued she did not receive notice of the hearing date and that her recent retention of counsel justified reopening the case.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had ample notice of the hearing date and that retaining counsel after a hearing is scheduled does not constitute exceptional circumstances warranting reconsideration.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex by the respondent casino, 15 months after the incident.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed for being filed outside the one-year statutory time limit.

The applicant argued the delay was incurred in good faith due to her mental health issues, learning disability, and personal circumstances.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's level of activity in pursuing her rights shortly after the incident, along with the medical evidence, did not support her claim that her disabilities prevented her from filing on time.

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