Maureen Doyle

The corporate respondent requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found it liable for discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual solicitation and ordered it to pay $18,000 in damages.

The respondent argued that the damages were excessive and conflicted with established jurisprudence.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the respondent was attempting to re-argue issues already canvassed and failed to demonstrate any conflict with established legal rules or other criteria justifying reconsideration.

The applicants filed human rights applications alleging discrimination based on creed after their contract was cancelled in 2003.

The applications were filed in December 2010, well beyond the one-year limitation period.

The Tribunal found that the applicants failed to provide a reasonable explanation for not pursuing their rights earlier and for waiting an additional eleven months after allegedly discovering the evidence of discrimination.

The applications were dismissed for delay.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his application on the basis that a concurrent court action raised the same facts and issues.

The applicant argued the court action concerned the non-payment of an insurance policy for his deceased wife and was distinct from the Tribunal matter.

The Tribunal found the applicant was attempting to re-argue his case and failed to establish any new determinative facts or a conflict with established jurisprudence.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant, a physician in a cardiac surgery residency program, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race, ethnic origin, and disability.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred pending the outcome of an ongoing academic appeal regarding the applicant's requirement to participate in further remediation.

The Tribunal found that there was significant overlap between the circumstances giving rise to the application and the academic appeal, and that deferral would avoid concurrent proceedings and potential inconsistent findings.

The Tribunal ordered the application deferred until the conclusion of the academic appeal.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, and ethnic origin regarding hiring decisions for teaching positions at York University.

In this interim decision, the applicant sought production of various documents.

The Tribunal denied the request for further course and instructor lists, original academic diplomas of another candidate, and application files for all math department hires since 2002, finding them irrelevant to the issue of whether the specific hiring decisions involving the applicant were tainted by discrimination.

However, the Tribunal ordered the university to produce the application materials of the successful candidates for the specific positions the applicant had applied for, as their qualifications were arguably relevant to the discrimination claim.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of family status after she was not hired for an internship.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The applicant alleged that during a phone call, a respondent employee made assumptions about her based on her family's poverty.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's allegations related to her financial status, not her status in a parent-child relationship.

As poverty is not a prohibited ground of discrimination in employment under the Code, the application had no reasonable prospect of success and was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in the provision of dental services based on multiple grounds.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the narrative only described complaints about wait times, billing, and quality of care, without identifying any specific acts of discrimination.

The applicant's response failed to establish a connection between the allegations and any protected grounds under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in the provision of goods and services by various physicians and medical institutions based on association, stemming from alleged misdiagnoses between 1996 and 2006.

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

The Tribunal found that the last incident occurred on September 1, 2009, when the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board denied reconsideration of his complaint, but the application was not filed until October 6, 2010.

The Tribunal concluded the application was out of time and the applicant failed to prove the delay was incurred in good faith.

The application was dismissed.

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

On consent of all parties, the applicant withdrew her application against the union respondent, Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 905.

The Tribunal amended the style of cause accordingly.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the University of Toronto and George Brown College based on disability and sex.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the University of Toronto because it was filed more than one year after the last alleged incident and the applicant failed to provide an adequate explanation for the delay.

The Tribunal also dismissed the application against George Brown College, finding that the applicant's allegations regarding professors' body language and movements lacked any nexus to a protected ground under the Human Rights Code, and therefore fell outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant sought a one-month extension to file her Reply and requested that all further correspondence and proceedings be conducted exclusively in English.

The Tribunal granted a two-week extension for the Reply.

The Tribunal denied the request for English-only proceedings, noting its practice in bilingual applications is to communicate in both languages and accept written submissions in the language they are received.

The Tribunal confirmed it will provide interpretation services during mediation and hearings, but will not translate the respondent's French communications into English, respecting the respondent's rights under the French Language Services Act.

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

A hearing was scheduled, and notices were sent to the parties.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned, noting the applicant's responsibility to attend and provide evidence in support of his allegations.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application as abandoned after he failed to attend the scheduled hearing.

The applicant argued that an employee of the respondent had been fired for discrimination, relying on Tribunal Rules 26.5(a), (c), and (d).

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant provided no new facts or evidence explaining his failure to attend the hearing, nor did he establish that the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence or that other factors outweighed the public interest in finality.

The applicant, a resident of a housing co-operative, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability (mental illness) after the co-op implemented a 'no cash' policy for housing charges.

The applicant claimed her disability required her to pay debts in cash to manage stress and excessive spending.

The Tribunal found that while the policy had an adverse impact, the co-op provided reasonable accommodation by allowing cash payments directly at the co-op's bank, which was close to the applicant's home and did not cause significant additional inconvenience.

The application was dismissed.

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

The respondent requested early dismissal on the basis that the applicant had previously signed a full and final release during grievance arbitration proceedings.

A hearing was scheduled, but the applicant failed to appear or provide any explanation for his absence.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned, emphasizing that applicants have a responsibility to attend hearings and provide evidence, and noting the significant resources expended by both the respondent and the Tribunal.

La requérante a déposé une requête alléguant une discrimination fondée sur un handicap après que son contrat de travail n'a pas été renouvelé pendant son congé de maladie.

L'intimée individuelle a demandé une ordonnance pour être retirée de la procédure, affirmant qu'aucune allégation ne la visait personnellement, et a demandé le rejet de la réclamation pour dommages-intérêts contractuels au motif qu'elle avait déjà été traitée par une agente des normes d'emploi.

Le Tribunal a rejeté la demande de retrait de l'intimée individuelle, notant qu'elle présidait le conseil d'administration et avait signé la lettre de non-renouvellement.

Le Tribunal a également refusé de rejeter la requête en vertu de l'article 45.1 du Code, concluant que la décision de l'agente des normes d'emploi ne portait pas sur le fond de la plainte pour discrimination.

The applicant, a casual security officer, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, ethnic origin, age, and reprisal.

The respondents requested the Application be dismissed for failing to establish a prima facie case.

The Tribunal found no prima facie case regarding age and ethnic origin, as the applicant failed to allege facts connecting the respondents' actions to these grounds.

However, the Tribunal found a prima facie case regarding disability and reprisal, noting the supervisor's awareness of the applicant's disability and the negative employer decisions following the applicant's human rights complaint.

The request to dismiss was allowed in part.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

Prior to filing the application, the applicant commenced a civil action in the Superior Court of Justice against the corporate respondent, alleging wrongful dismissal and failure to accommodate his disability.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed pursuant to section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, which prevents duplicate proceedings.

The Tribunal found that the civil action raised the same facts and issues as the application and sought remedies for the same alleged Code infringements.

Consequently, the application was barred by section 34(11) and dismissed.

The applicant, a horse trainer, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal after the Ontario Racing Commission denied his request for a medical adjournment during a disciplinary appeal and imposed penalties.

The respondents brought a preliminary objection to dismiss the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had previously sought judicial review of the ORC's decisions at the Divisional Court, raising the same issues regarding the adjournment refusal and penalties.

Concluding that the Divisional Court proceeding appropriately dealt with the substance of the application, the Tribunal dismissed the application to avoid duplication and re-litigation.

The respondents requested the dismissal of a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, sex, and family status.

They argued the application was barred by the internal complaint process of the Children's Aid Society and by the statutory immunity provided under section 15(6) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that no other proceeding had appropriately dealt with the substance of the application and that the statutory immunity in the CFSA does not override the primacy of the Human Rights Code.