Maureen Doyle

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination on multiple grounds, including disability and age, following a 75-minute power outage that affected her CPAP machine.

She also alleged discrimination and reprisal related to the respondents' efforts to collect court-ordered costs from a previous Small Claims Court proceeding.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success as the applicant could not point to any evidence linking the respondents' actions to any protected ground under the Code.

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

A preliminary hearing was scheduled, and notice was properly delivered to the applicant.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing and did not communicate with the Tribunal to explain her absence.

Consequently, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application as abandoned.

The application had been dismissed after the applicant failed to comply with pre-hearing disclosure rules and failed to respond to a Case Assessment Direction warning of dismissal.

The applicant argued he was trying to secure legal representation and was unaware of who to contact.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to establish any new facts or other criteria under Rule 26 to justify reconsideration, noting his complete failure to communicate with the Tribunal prior to the deadline.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

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

A preliminary hearing was scheduled by teleconference to determine whether the litigation guardian should be removed.

The applicant failed to attend the preliminary hearing and did not communicate with the Tribunal to explain the absence.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The respondent Durham Student Transportation Services (DSTS) requested to add the Durham District School Board (DDSB) as a respondent to human rights applications alleging discrimination in school bus transportation based on family status.

The Tribunal applied the Smyth test and found that DDSB's policies determined transportation eligibility and DSTS could not act without DDSB's authority.

As DDSB consented and there was no prejudice, the Tribunal granted the request to add DDSB as a respondent.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of race and age after his employment was terminated.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant could not point to any evidence beyond his own suspicions linking the respondent's actions to his race or age.

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

The applicant, initially self-represented, brought Requests for Order During Proceedings to amend the names of the respondents to their correct legal names and to add public interest remedies to her Application.

The respondents did not file responses or object to the requests.

The Tribunal granted both requests, finding no prejudice to the respondents and no significant impact on the course of the hearing.

The applicant requested reconsideration of an interim decision that deferred her human rights application pending the outcome of parallel grievance arbitration proceedings.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant was attempting to re-argue points already considered and that, in any event, an interim decision on deferral is not a final decision subject to reconsideration under Rule 26.1 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant, who is paralyzed, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability and age because the respondent Ministry of Health and Long Term Care does not fund non-emergency transportation to medical appointments.

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

The Tribunal found that because the respondent does not provide non-emergency transportation services to anyone in the province, the failure to provide it to the applicant could not constitute discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

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

The applicant, a resident of a mobile home park who has a physical disability, alleged discrimination with respect to accommodation when the respondents refused to allow a gas line installation to his unit and failed to clear the snow windrow at his driveway.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant failed to point to evidence showing that the respondents' actions imposed an additional burden or disadvantage on him due to his disability, as he was responsible for clearing his own driveway and had alternative heating options available.

The applicant, a unionized employee with psoriatic arthritis and a workplace foot injury, alleged that her employer discriminated against her on the basis of disability.

She claimed the employer failed to properly accommodate her when it assigned her to modified work inspecting parts in an office area, citing issues with her workspace, work supply, and communication.

She also alleged that a non-disciplinary warning letter regarding her absenteeism was discriminatory.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the employer had provided reasonable accommodation within her medical restrictions and that the attendance letter, which sought to address overall absenteeism while she was being accommodated, did not violate the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code but failed to comply with the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure regarding document disclosure and witness lists.

Despite a Case Assessment Direction warning that failure to comply could result in dismissal for abandonment, the applicant did not provide the required materials or communicate with the Tribunal.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned and cancelled the scheduled hearing dates.

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

A preliminary hearing was scheduled by conference call, and notice was delivered to the applicant.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing and did not communicate with the Tribunal to explain the absence.

Consequently, the application was dismissed on the basis that it was deemed abandoned.

The applicant failed to comply with the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure regarding the exchange and filing of documents and witness lists.

Despite a Case Assessment Direction warning that the application could be dismissed as abandoned if the materials were not filed by a specified deadline, the applicant did not comply or communicate with the Tribunal.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned and cancelled the scheduled hearing dates.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to add a corporate respondent and to defer the hearing pending the resolution of a criminal matter.

The Tribunal granted the request to add the corporate respondent, finding that the individual respondent was its sole director and officer, and that the allegations could support a finding of corporate liability under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal denied the request for a deferral, noting no apparent overlap between the criminal charges and the human rights application, and directed the applicant to seek a variation of his bail conditions to permit his participation in the hearing.

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

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed because the applicant had signed a full and final release upon his termination.

The applicant argued the release was void because the respondent breached the settlement agreement by failing to provide the final payment on time, and that he signed under economic duress.

The Tribunal found no evidence of economic duress amounting to coercion of will.

The Tribunal held that the failure to implement a term of the settlement does not permit a party to raise the underlying substantive issues at the Tribunal.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The applicant failed to comply with the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure and a subsequent Case Assessment Direction requiring the production of documents, a witness list, and witness statements.

The Tribunal warned the applicant that failure to comply could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant did not file the required materials or communicate with the Tribunal by the deadline.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned and cancelled the scheduled hearing dates.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled preliminary hearing to allow more time for settlement discussions and because her newly retained representative was unavailable.

The respondent opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding that neither the desire to continue settlement discussions nor the late retention of a representative constituted exceptional circumstances justifying an adjournment under the Tribunal's Practice Direction.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of the Tribunal's decision dismissing her human rights application as abandoned.

The application was originally dismissed after the applicant repeatedly failed to comply with Case Assessment Directions requiring her to produce documents related to her WSIB appeals.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not establish any new facts or evidence, nor did she prove a lack of notice regarding the proceedings or the required disclosures.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant filed an application alleging that the respondent contravened a settlement agreement reached in a previous human rights application.

The respondent admitted to not paying the $1,500.00 agreed upon in the Minutes of Settlement, citing a frozen bank account by the Canada Revenue Agency and subsequent financial difficulties.

The Tribunal found that the respondent breached the settlement agreement and ordered the respondent to pay the outstanding $1,500.00 along with pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.