Maureen Doyle

The applicant's union filed a request to intervene in an application alleging discrimination in employment.

The Tribunal granted the union intervenor status, noting that a union nearly always has an interest in a human rights application brought by an employee in its bargaining unit, and there were no exceptional circumstances to deviate from the Tribunal's usual practice.

The applicant filed an application alleging reprisal in employment contrary to the Human Rights Code after his employment was terminated following an incident where he intervened in an argument between a manager and a co-worker.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss as the application failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination or explain how the respondent's behaviour related to claiming or enforcing a right under the Code.

Finding no link between the allegations and a reprisal under the Code, the Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a Request for Order to amend her human rights application by adding the union president as a personal respondent.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding no compelling juridical reason to name him personally, as there were no particularized allegations against him and his individual conduct was not a central issue.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing.

Her representative later faxed a note citing illness and requesting an adjournment.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring medical documentation to support the adjournment request, warning that failure to comply could result in dismissal.

The applicant did not respond or provide the required documentation.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal and discrimination.

After multiple hearing dates and adjournments, the applicant failed to attend a scheduled continuation date, instead sending an email requesting the adjudicator be replaced due to alleged bias and stating the hearing was a waste of time.

The Tribunal found no reasonable apprehension of bias and dismissed the application as abandoned due to the applicant's failure to attend.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination based on race, colour, ancestry, and creed.

The applicant brought requests for an order during proceedings (RFOP) to add a loss prevention manager as an individual respondent and to order the production of a letter of apology.

The respondents brought an RFOP to remove an existing individual respondent.

The Tribunal granted the respondents' request to remove the individual respondent, finding no compelling reason to proceed against her individually as the corporate respondent accepted liability for her actions.

The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's request to add the loss prevention manager for similar reasons, and dismissed the document production request as premature.

The applicant alleged discrimination in housing based on disability, claiming that the individual respondent made comments about his mental health during an Ombudsman's investigation into his eviction notices.

The respondents requested the removal of the individual respondent as a party, arguing that the corporate respondent was vicariously liable for her actions and that she was acting within her employment capacity.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the alleged conduct of the individual respondent may be central to the application and that a hearing was already scheduled to determine the matter.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment more than one year after the last alleged incident.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for delay.

The applicant argued the delay was justified by discoverability and fraudulent concealment, claiming he only later learned a new employee had been interviewed to replace him.

The Tribunal found the applicant suspected discrimination at the time of his demotion and the later information was merely supporting evidence, not the discovery of a potential case.

The application was dismissed as the applicant failed to establish the delay was incurred in good faith under section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal by the respondent.

Prior to the hearing, the applicant requested to withdraw his application without prejudice.

The respondent objected, seeking dismissal with prejudice and costs, arguing it had expended significant resources defending the matter.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to withdraw without terms, noting that if the applicant filed a new application, the respondent could raise timeliness objections at that time.

The applicant alleged age discrimination after being unsuccessful in a competition for a teaching position.

In his Reply, the applicant raised new allegations including reprisal and systemic discrimination in other hiring decisions.

The respondent brought a Request for Order During Proceedings (RFOP) to strike the Reply, and the applicant brought an RFOP seeking production of numerous documents relating to other hires and teacher lists.

The Tribunal dismissed the request to strike the Reply but clarified that only the original hiring allegation was properly before it.

The Tribunal largely dismissed the applicant's document production request, finding the requested documents not arguably relevant to the single hiring decision at issue, except for the salary information of the successful candidate and the applicant.

The applicant filed Requests for Order During Proceedings (RFOP) to amend the remedies sought in his human rights application to include punitive compensation, dismissal of the respondent's office team, and a letter of apology.

The respondent did not file a response.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, noting that the matter had not yet been scheduled for a hearing and any potential prejudice could be addressed by allowing the respondent to file an amended Response.

The applicant requested an adjournment of scheduled hearing dates due to medical reasons, providing a doctor's note indicating an inability to participate.

The respondents opposed the adjournment, citing a history of last-minute requests and prejudice, and requested the application be dismissed.

The Tribunal cancelled the first hearing date but ordered the second date to proceed to hear evidence and argument specifically on the adjournment request and whether the application should be dismissed for abuse of process.

The respondent Humber College filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to remove several individual respondents, require the applicant to provide further particulars, and extend the time to file its Response.

The Tribunal granted the request to remove the individual respondents, noting that Humber accepted responsibility for their actions in the course of employment.

The Tribunal also ordered the applicant to provide further particulars regarding his allegations of discrimination and failure to accommodate his disability, and granted Humber a 30-day extension to file its Response after the particulars are provided.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application against the respondent university.

She also requested a Tribunal inquiry into a specific email.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet any of the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26, as she was essentially attempting to re-litigate issues already decided.

The request for an inquiry was also dismissed on the basis of functus officio, as the underlying application had already been finally dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application against the respondent university regarding alleged discrimination in hiring.

The original decision dismissed allegations prior to April 30, 2007, as untimely, and found no discrimination in the remaining hiring decisions.

The Tribunal denied the reconsideration request, finding that the applicant was merely attempting to re-argue his case and failed to establish any of the threshold criteria under Rule 26, such as new evidence, lack of notice, or conflict with established jurisprudence.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of age, race, colour, and disability following a workplace injury.

The respondent requested dismissal of the application for delay and for having no reasonable prospect of success.

Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the allegations based on age, race, and colour as the applicant provided only bald assertions without pointing to evidence linking the respondent's actions to those grounds.

However, the Tribunal allowed the allegation of discrimination based on disability regarding a specific incident in April 2012 to proceed, finding it timely and sufficiently particularized.

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

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal found that the majority of the allegations occurred more than one year prior to the application and were not part of a series of incidents, nor was the delay incurred in good faith.

For the remaining timely allegations, the Tribunal found that the applicant failed to point to any evidence linking the respondent's actions to a prohibited ground.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, creed, and family status against her employer, her union, and several individuals.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether the allegations against the union and its representatives had a reasonable prospect of success.

Finding no evidence that the union's actions were based on discriminatory factors, the Tribunal dismissed the application against the union respondents.

The Tribunal also removed the individual employer respondents from the proceeding, as the corporate respondent accepted liability for their actions.

Finally, the Tribunal dismissed the applicant's requests for an interim remedy of severance pay and for premature production of documents.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application alleging workplace reprisal.

The original decision dismissed older allegations for delay and the timely allegation for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish any new determinative facts or evidence that could not have been reasonably obtained earlier, and that her submissions amounted to re-arguing issues already decided.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in the provision of services because of disability.

The Tribunal issued Case Assessment Directions requiring the applicant to file witness lists, statements, and documents, and later to confirm if he would be testifying and provide a will-say statement.

The applicant failed to comply with these orders or explain his non-compliance.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it, cancelling the scheduled hearing dates.