Maureen Doyle

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal and a poisoned work environment.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because the applicant's union had filed a concurrent grievance based on the same facts and human rights issues.

The Tribunal found that the remedies sought in the grievance and the application were sufficiently related to indicate a commonality of issues.

Consistent with its normal approach to avoid simultaneous proceedings and conflicting determinations, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance arbitration process.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to place her application in abeyance pending the resolution of another legal matter, citing medical conditions.

She also requested paper copies of the respondent's documents.

The Tribunal denied the abeyance request, noting the applicant had initiated and participated in other legal matters and had already enjoyed a de facto deferral of over one year.

The request for paper documents was also denied, as the respondent offered a CD copy and paper copies would be provided at the disclosure stage.

The applicant filed a human rights application against a school board alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and family status in the provision of services.

After receiving the school board's response, the applicant requested to add the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, the CCAC, and Bayshore Home Health as respondents.

Applying the Smyth test, the Tribunal denied the request to add the Ministry, finding no direct service relationship covered by the Code.

However, the Tribunal granted the request to add the CCAC and Bayshore, as they potentially shared responsibility for the provision of nursing services to the applicant at school.

The applicant alleged discrimination in housing based on ethnic origin (language) and receipt of social assistance, as well as reprisal, after being required to leave a transitional housing program.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success as the applicant could not establish a link between the respondent's actions and the protected grounds.

The applicant, a 10-year-old student, alleged sex discrimination by the respondent school board, claiming the school failed to appropriately address assaults by a male student who targeted girls.

The Tribunal convened a summary hearing to determine whether the application had no reasonable prospect of success under Rule 19A.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application, finding that the nature of the alleged facts might require the respondent to produce evidence.

The matter was ordered to proceed to a full hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging the respondents failed to accommodate her disability during a math exam.

In a Request for an Order During Proceedings, the applicant sought disclosure of a video relating to an alleged bullying incident on May 5, 2015.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the video was not relevant to the issues raised in the application.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to amend the remedy sought and for the production of documents.

The respondent did not reply.

The Tribunal granted the request, allowing the applicant to increase the general damages claimed to $15,000 and add a claim for lost wages of $13,662.

The Tribunal also ordered the respondent to produce the requested documents, finding them arguably relevant to the issues raised in the application.

The respondents requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing on the basis that their representative, the Director of Human Resources, was out of the province.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario denied the request, finding that the respondents had been aware of the hearing date for several months and failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying an adjournment as required by the Tribunal's Practice Direction.

The applicant, a teacher, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal by the respondent school board.

She subsequently filed multiple Requests for Order During Proceedings seeking to amend her application to include additional allegations, evidence, and parties.

The Tribunal allowed the application to be amended to include an allegation that an internal investigation report was a reprisal for filing the human rights application.

The Tribunal denied the other requested amendments, finding they were either evidentiary in nature, untimely, or would unduly expand the scope of the proceedings.

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

A summary hearing was scheduled by teleconference, and notice was properly delivered to the applicant.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing or communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

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

A summary hearing was scheduled and notice was provided to the applicant.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the application on the basis that the applicant was deemed to have abandoned it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on multiple grounds after her claim for Ontario Disability Support Program benefits was denied.

The Tribunal ordered a summary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations challenging the Social Benefits Tribunal's decisions on the basis of adjudicative immunity.

The remaining allegations, including claims of bribery and discriminatory comments by a government employee, were dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success because the applicant failed to provide particulars linking the alleged actions to Code grounds, and the employee in question did not work for the respondent tribunal.

The applicant alleged that the respondent employer discriminated against him on the basis of age and disability by failing to train him on a boom truck, reducing his hours, denying a wage increase, and ultimately laying him off.

The Tribunal found that the lack of training was due to economic constraints and performance issues, not discrimination.

A discriminatory comment made by a co-worker was promptly addressed by management.

The Tribunal concluded that the reduction in hours and the layoff were due to a severe winter and poor business cash flow, and the denial of a wage increase was based on documented performance issues.

The application was dismissed.

The applicants requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed their applications following a summary hearing.

The applicants alleged age and family status discrimination by the Children's Aid Society.

The Tribunal found that the applicants failed to meet the threshold criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5, as they merely restated previous arguments, provided no new determinative evidence, and made unsupported allegations of bias against the adjudicator.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant filed human rights applications against the respondents.

The Tribunal scheduled a summary hearing by teleconference to determine whether the applications should be dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant advised the Tribunal he would refuse to participate and failed to attend the scheduled hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the applications as abandoned.

The applicant, who self-identified as Hispanic/Latina, alleged discrimination on the basis of ethnic origin after the respondent employer implemented a rule requiring employees to speak only French in the workplace, including during unpaid breaks.

The respondent operated a care home for elderly francophone nuns.

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

The Tribunal found that language is not a protected ground under the Code, and the applicant failed to establish that the rule was used as a proxy for discrimination based on ethnic origin.

Most of the allegations were dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success, except for the allegation that the applicant was required to leave the premises to make telephone calls to her family, which was allowed to proceed to a full hearing.

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

The original application was dismissed because the substance of the application had been appropriately dealt with through a grievance settlement and consent order.

The applicant argued there were new facts or evidence regarding his substance abuse and witnesses to the settlement.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant's history of substance abuse was never disputed and the new evidence could have been obtained earlier and was not determinative of the case.

The applicant filed multiple Requests for an Order During Proceedings (RFOP) seeking to amend his human rights applications to include new allegations of reprisal and performance management issues, to be moved to a different work area, and for a Tribunal-ordered inquiry to gather evidence.

The Tribunal allowed the amendments to the applications as the respondent did not object.

However, the Tribunal denied the request to be moved to a different work area, noting it was an interim remedy for an event not part of the applications.

The Tribunal also denied the request for an inquiry under section 44 of the Human Rights Code, finding that an inquiry should not substitute the usual document production process and that the requested scope went beyond the applications.

The Tribunal held an initial hearing into the merits of the application but subsequently cancelled the continuation dates.

The Tribunal directed the parties to provide available dates for rescheduling.

The applicant failed to respond to the initial email and a subsequent formal rescheduling request, which warned that failure to respond could result in the application being considered abandoned.

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

The applicant alleged that the respondent police services board discriminated against him on the basis of age by participating in his eviction from his home and changing the locks.

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 connection between the respondent's alleged actions and his age.

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