Maureen Doyle

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application for being filed outside the one-year limitation period.

The applicant argued that the respondents fraudulently concealed the discriminatory reasons for his demotion, which should suspend the limitation period, and that the Tribunal applied too restrictive a view of good faith.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was attempting to re-argue issues already decided and failed to establish any new facts, conflict with established jurisprudence, or other factors justifying reconsideration.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability, claiming the respondent failed to accommodate his medical restrictions regarding chemical exposure.

The respondent sought dismissal on the grounds that the applicant had previously filed a substantially similar complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) in 2007, and that the current application was untimely.

The Tribunal found that the core allegations regarding the failure to accommodate in 2002 were the same as those in the 2007 OHRC complaint, depriving the Tribunal of jurisdiction under s. 53(8) of the Code.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that a 2012 meeting between the parties did not constitute a new incident of discrimination but was merely a continuing consequence of the 2002 decision.

As the application was filed out of time and no good faith reason for the delay was established, the application was dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application on the basis of delay and having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant argued that the decision conflicted with established case law and that other factors outweighed the public interest in finality.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was attempting to re-argue his case and had not provided new, determinative evidence.

The request for reconsideration was denied as the applicant failed to meet the threshold criteria under Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant's litigation guardian filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking an explanation for the respondent's possession of allegedly private documents, early disclosure of documents, and an extension of time to file a Reply.

The Tribunal dismissed the requests, finding it lacks jurisdiction to enforce privacy legislation or the Education Act, and that the request for early document production was premature under the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of religion regarding her transfer to a different library branch.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the matter had been appropriately dealt with through a grievance settlement negotiated by the applicant's union.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant had neither signed the Minutes of Settlement nor implicitly accepted its terms, as the benefits were unilaterally imposed by the employer.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his application alleging racial discrimination in employment.

The original application was dismissed because the applicant had signed a full and final release upon termination of his employment, which the Tribunal found encompassed proceedings under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence and that public interest warranted reconsideration.

The Tribunal found the applicant was merely re-arguing his case and failed to establish any of the threshold criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

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

After the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction warning that the application could be dismissed if the applicant did not comply by a specified deadline, the applicant failed to file the required materials or communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The respondents requested the removal of three individual condominium board members and the property management company as respondents to a human rights application alleging discrimination based on place of origin.

The Tribunal applied the factors from Persaud and Sigrist and Carson, finding no compelling reason to keep the individual board members as parties since the corporate respondent accepted responsibility for their actions.

However, the Tribunal declined to remove the property management company at this stage, as its conduct appeared central to the allegations.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the respondent police service during an arrest and detention in 2008.

The application was filed more than five years after the alleged incident.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for delay and failure to identify acts of discrimination.

The applicant argued the delay was in good faith due to incarceration, depression, and ignorance of his rights.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that ignorance of the law does not constitute good faith, and that it was plain and obvious the allegations had no connection to any protected grounds under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend her human rights application to include allegations of reprisal, specifically a reassignment decision.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the vague allegations lacked particulars and the specific reassignment allegation was brought less than a month before the scheduled hearing, which would prejudice the respondent.

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

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

As the applicant did not file the required materials or communicate with the Tribunal by the deadline, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed human rights applications against her employer, the Toronto Transit Commission, and her union, alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the applications for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations regarding the termination of the applicant's employment and all allegations against the union, finding no evidence linking the respondents' actions to the applicant's disability.

However, the Tribunal allowed the allegation regarding a delayed wage increase to continue in the Tribunal process.

The applicant filed a human rights application against his former criminal defence lawyers, alleging discrimination based on race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, and creed.

The application was filed more than a year after the last alleged incident.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

The applicant argued the delay was due to his incarceration, depression, and ignorance of his rights.

The Tribunal found that ignorance of rights does not constitute good faith and that the application failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination connected to the Code grounds.

The application was dismissed on a preliminary basis.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging the respondent failed to accommodate her disability.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant was concurrently pursuing a union grievance based on the same facts and human rights issues.

Despite the applicant's opposition and complaints about her union's representation and the length of the grievance process, the Tribunal found substantial overlap between the proceedings.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability, specifically regarding the employer's failure to accommodate her return to work following a workplace injury.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant had also filed a union grievance and a WSIB appeal.

The grievance was subsequently resolved.

The respondent requested deferral pending the WSIB appeal, arguing it was necessary to understand the facts.

The Tribunal declined to defer the application, finding that the WSIB appeal concerned initial entitlement and causation, whereas the human rights application concerned discrimination, meaning the subject matters were different.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1287 filed a request to intervene in a human rights application alleging reprisal in employment.

The Union sought to intervene as an interested party to address issues of remedy and matters impacting the collective agreement.

As neither the applicant nor the respondent filed a response opposing the request, and the Union demonstrated an interest in the outcome, the Tribunal granted the request to intervene.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, specifically regarding the respondent employer's failure to permit her to return to modified work.

The respondent brought a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking access to the applicant's personal health information contained in its internal Occupational Health and Claims Management file, arguing it could not file a complete Response without reviewing these documents.

The Tribunal found that exceptional circumstances justified the early production of these arguably relevant documents, as privacy legislation otherwise prevented the respondent from accessing them.

The Tribunal granted the respondent access to the relevant portions of the file and extended the time to file its Response by 35 days.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability.

The Tribunal addressed three preliminary requests.

First, the applicant's initial request to defer the application pending a grievance process was denied because the grievance process had concluded.

Second, the Union's request to intervene was denied because it was already named as a respondent and thus had full party standing.

Third, the City's request for further particulars was resolved as the applicant provided sufficient information, and the City was directed to file its Response.

The applicant alleged discrimination with respect to employment because of disability, claiming she was denied training and startup funding under the ODSP program.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the Application because an appeal dealing with the substance of the allegations was scheduled before the Social Benefits Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that proceeding concurrently would risk inconsistent findings and require the parties to address substantially the same issues in two forums.

The Tribunal deferred the Application pending the conclusion of the Social Benefits Tribunal appeal.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, sexual orientation, age, and reprisal, relating to workplace accommodation and the denial of sick leave benefits.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer the application because the applicant's union had filed a grievance based on the same facts.

The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the application and the ongoing grievance process.

Applying its general approach to defer to concurrent grievance proceedings, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance and arbitration process.