Maureen Doyle

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled hearing before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring submissions on whether the application should be dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant, who was self-represented, provided submissions indicating confusion over the hearing date and a desire to proceed.

Finding unusual circumstances and genuine confusion, the Tribunal declined to dismiss the application as abandoned and ordered a new hearing date to be scheduled.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on sex and family status.

The Tribunal initially issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant had a concurrent claim with the Ministry of Labour regarding the same allegations.

The applicant subsequently withdrew her Ministry of Labour claim.

As there was no longer another legal proceeding dealing with the subject matter, the Tribunal directed that the application continue in its process.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of race, colour, age, and disability after a bus driver allegedly failed to completely lower a bus to accommodate her use of a cane, resulting in a fall.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal found that the applicant provided no evidence linking the incident to her race, colour, or age.

Regarding disability, the applicant admitted she did not request further accommodation before boarding.

The Tribunal dismissed the application in its entirety as having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant, who is legally blind, purchased employment coaching services from the corporate respondent.

He requested that the program materials be provided in Word format so his screen-reading software could access them.

The respondents failed to provide the materials in an accessible format, causing the applicant to struggle with magnifying glasses and eventually abandon the program.

The Tribunal found that the corporate respondent and its directing mind, Dale Smith, discriminated against the applicant by failing to accommodate his disability.

The respondents were ordered jointly and severally to refund the program fee and pay $5,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, along with public interest remedies.

The applicant, who suffers from multiple chemical sensitivities and other disabilities, alleged the respondent landlord failed to accommodate her during apartment renovations.

She sought an interim remedy requiring the respondent to clean her unit and reproduce her allegedly contaminated documents.

The respondent requested the Application be dismissed for abuse of process due to the applicant's failure to file a Reply.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss but refused further extensions for the Reply.

The Tribunal dismissed the interim remedy request, finding the apartment cleaning moot as the applicant had vacated, and the document reproduction unnecessary as the applicant could arrange it herself.

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

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to file her witness list, witness statements, and documents, warning that failure to do so could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to comply with the direction and did not communicate with the Tribunal.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and family status against Jane Finch Community Legal Services and its individual board members.

The applicant brought a request for an order to add Legal Aid Ontario as a respondent, arguing it was the parent organization.

The respondents brought a request to remove the individual board members as respondents.

The Tribunal dismissed the request to add Legal Aid Ontario, finding no allegations that it violated the Code and no employment relationship.

The Tribunal granted the request to remove the individual respondents, finding the corporate respondent was alleged to be liable for the conduct and there was no compelling reason to keep the individuals as parties.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race and reprisal regarding work assignments and scheduling that interfered with his ability to participate in aboriginal cultural events.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant's union had filed a concurrent grievance based on the same or similar facts.

Finding substantial overlap between the facts and human rights issues in both proceedings, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal, a poisoned work environment, and failure to investigate harassment complaints.

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

The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the application and the grievances, which were further advanced and scheduled for arbitration.

Applying its normal approach to concurrent proceedings, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process.

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

The respondent employer requested that the application be deferred pending the resolution of a related union grievance.

The applicant's union requested intervenor status.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene, finding it had an interest in potential remedies affecting the bargaining unit.

The Tribunal declined to defer the application, noting the grievance was in abeyance and did not appear to raise human rights issues.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking an adjournment of scheduled hearing dates due to medical reasons, other legal proceedings, and housing issues.

The respondents consented to an extension for filing materials but objected to the adjournment, citing a history of multiple adjournments during mediation.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify it, but granted an extension for filing disclosure materials.

The applicant alleged that the respondent breached the confidentiality provision of a human rights settlement when counsel for police officers at a separate Police Services Act hearing asked the applicant if he was seeking money 'again'.

The Tribunal held a teleconference hearing, which the applicant abandoned partway through.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the respondent was not a party to the Police Services Act hearing and had no control over the officers' independent counsel.

Furthermore, the mere fact that counsel speculated about a financial settlement did not prove that the respondent had disclosed confidential information.

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

A summary hearing was scheduled by telephone conference call.

Neither the applicant nor the respondents attended the hearing.

The Tribunal waited until 2:00 p.m. and, having received no communication from the applicant, dismissed the application on the basis that it was deemed abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint against the Toronto Police Services Board (TPSB) and the Children's Aid Society of Toronto (CAS) alleging discrimination on multiple grounds following her arrest and detention after a fire at her residence.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the CAS as an abuse of process, finding it was an attempt to relitigate a custody arrangement settled in a Child Protection Proceeding.

The Tribunal also dismissed most allegations against the TPSB for having no reasonable prospect of success, as the applicant failed to point to evidence linking the police actions to prohibited grounds.

The Tribunal deferred its decision on the sole remaining allegation regarding the return of the applicant's hijab, ordering the TPSB to produce video evidence if available.

In a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability, the respondent school board requested an order to exclude the applicant's treating physician from testifying or, alternatively, to compel production of his medical records and records from other community agencies.

The Tribunal permitted the applicant to call the physician as an expert witness, ordered the production of the physician's records for a specified timeframe, and scheduled a teleconference to hear oral submissions regarding the production of records from other agencies.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of an interim decision that dismissed his allegations of age discrimination regarding the operation of the employer's health care benefit and life insurance plans after he turned 65.

The applicant argued that as a police officer, the Employment Standards Act did not apply to him, and therefore the exemption in section 25 of the Human Rights Code should not apply.

The Tribunal denied the request for reconsideration, finding that the interim decision's interpretation of section 25 of the Code was correct and that importing the ESA's exclusions into the Code would lead to incongruous results.

The applicant alleged that he and his wife were denied the opportunity to view a rental apartment and were harassed by the respondent's security guard based on their race, age, and association with a person identified by a Code-protected ground.

The Tribunal found that the respondent had a credible, non-discriminatory explanation for not showing the apartment, namely that the rental agent was busy with pressing professional and personal obligations and the applicants did not have an appointment.

The Tribunal also found that a single comment by the security guard regarding the price of the units did not amount to harassment under the Code.

The application was dismissed.

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

He argued that he did not receive the respondent's response and that his delay was caused by post-traumatic stress disorder.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had notice of the respondent's request to dismiss and that the medical evidence provided did not establish that his condition prevented him from filing the application within the one-year statutory time limit.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

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

The applicant subsequently filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to add her corporate employer, La Casbah Restaurant, as a respondent.

Applying the Smyth test, the Tribunal found that there were allegations that could support a finding of a Code violation against the corporate respondent and that it would be fair to add it to the proceeding.

The request to add the corporate respondent was granted.

The applicant filed a human rights application regarding suspensions and the termination of her employment.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred because the applicant's union had filed grievances based on the same facts and human rights issues.

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

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process, noting that grievance arbitrators have the jurisdiction to apply the Human Rights Code.