Maureen Doyle

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondents.

The respondent employer requested that the application be deferred because the applicant's union had filed a grievance based on the same facts and issues, which was proceeding to arbitration.

The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the application and the grievance and deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates, citing a recent change in legal counsel and ongoing settlement discussions.

The applicant consented to the request.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario denied the adjournment, finding that retaining counsel late and seeking more time for settlement discussions do not constitute exceptional circumstances under the Tribunal's Practice Direction.

The hearing dates were maintained, but the parties were granted a brief extension to complete their disclosure obligations.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex, family status, and marital status by Ontario Works.

He alleged that Ontario Works refused to investigate his claims of welfare fraud against his ex-wife because of his gender, and that he was denied financial assistance for his child on the same basis.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations regarding the respondent's website and the sponsorship contract for having no reasonable prospect of success, as there was no evidence linking the respondent's actions to a prohibited ground.

The remaining allegations were dismissed as untimely, as they occurred more than one year prior to the application and the applicant failed to establish that the delay was incurred in good faith.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal by her employer regarding accommodation of her disability and changes to her work assignment.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to address issues of delay and whether the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the allegations relating to events more than one year prior to the application were untimely and that the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The single timely allegation regarding a change in work area was dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success, as the applicant failed to point to any evidence establishing an intention to reprise.

The applicant, a lawyer, filed a human rights application alleging that the Law Society of Upper Canada discriminated against him on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, and ethnic origin during its investigation of a client complaint.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant made bald assertions of discrimination and failed to point to any evidence that could establish differential treatment or a link between the respondent's actions and the protected grounds.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability following the termination of her internship.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed for delay, as it was filed more than one year after the termination and subsequent communications.

The applicant argued that her delay was due to her disability, specifically chronic fatigue syndrome exacerbated by stress.

The Tribunal found that the medical evidence did not establish that her disability was so debilitating as to prevent her from pursuing her rights within the statutory time limit.

The application was dismissed as untimely.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the hearing due to medical reasons and subsequently requested that the adjudicator recuse herself, alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The bias allegation was based on the adjudicator's slight personal acquaintance with the intervenor's counsel and her prior participation in a mediation session.

The Tribunal dismissed the recusal motion, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment request, finding that the applicant's medical documentation provided some basis for her inability to attend the hearing due to an acute episode of back pain.

The applicant, a condominium owner, alleged discrimination on the basis of creed and reprisal by the respondent condominium corporation.

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

The applicant alleged that the respondent reprised against her for a previous human rights application by refusing to let her speak at board meetings and deleting her posts from the condominium website.

The Tribunal found no evidence linking the respondent's actions to a Code ground or an intention to reprise, noting the respondent provided legitimate, non-Code reasons for its actions.

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

The respondent employer filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking production of documents based on the applicant's testimony, specifically correspondence relating to an email titled 'Cussing at Work'.

The applicant did not file a response.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to produce the arguably relevant correspondence between herself and a named individual regarding the email to the participating respondents.

The Tribunal deferred the remainder of the production request to the next hearing day.

The respondent employer filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking the production of the applicant's unredacted medical records dating back to 1997.

The applicant opposed the request, arguing the redacted information was not arguably relevant and production would violate her privacy.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had made her health arguably relevant through her testimony.

The Tribunal ordered the production of unredacted medical records, but limited the temporal scope to the period from September 2004, when the applicant first referenced her health, to February 2013, her last day of testimony.

The corporate respondent brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings to remove five individual respondents from the human rights application and to compel the applicant to provide further particulars of his allegations.

The Tribunal granted the request to remove the individual respondents, finding no compelling juridical reason to retain them as the corporate respondent accepted liability for their actions and was in the best position to respond to and remedy the alleged failure to accommodate.

The Tribunal also ordered the applicant to provide further particulars regarding his allegations of discrimination.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in the provision of health care services on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, citizenship, ethnic origin, and disability.

She alleged that she had difficulty finding a family doctor and that immigrants receive preferential access to health care services.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to point to any evidence linking her difficulties in finding a family doctor to any discriminatory actions by the Ministry of Health or the Ontario Medical Association.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal after her position was declared surplus and she was demoted.

The applicant's association, which had previously filed and settled a grievance on her behalf regarding the same events, requested intervenor status to ensure the settlement terms were respected.

The Tribunal granted the association's request to intervene.

The respondent's request to dismiss the application based on the prior settlement and issues of delay were deferred to a preliminary hearing.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination and reprisal by her employer regarding her return to work following a medical leave.

The applicant's union, the Ontario Nurses' Association, requested to intervene in the proceeding.

The respondent consented to the request, and the applicant made no submissions.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene, finding it had an interest in the outcome as the bargaining agent for registered nurses at the respondent's workplace.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming he was terminated due to a workplace injury.

He subsequently requested that the Tribunal defer his application pending the outcome of his Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) appeal regarding his eligibility for benefits.

The Tribunal declined to defer the application, finding that the subject matter of the WSIB proceeding (causation and benefit eligibility) differed from the human rights proceeding (whether the termination violated the Code), and that proceeding with the application was the most fair, just, and expeditious outcome.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal, related to discipline and termination.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because the applicant's union had filed concurrent grievances regarding the same facts.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process, noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority to decide human rights issues and that deferral is the Tribunal's normal approach in such circumstances.

The applicant alleged that the respondent discriminated against her on the basis of disability (asthma) when it failed to hire her for a home-based customer service position.

The respondent requested a summary hearing, arguing that the applicant was one of many unsuccessful candidates in a highly competitive process and lacked relevant sales experience.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to point to any evidence establishing a link between the respondent's decision not to hire her and her disability.

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

The applicant, a student in the Faculty of Education, alleged discrimination based on place of origin, ethnic origin, creed, and family status after failing her teaching placements and being unable to secure new ones.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to establish any link between the respondents' actions and the protected grounds under the Code.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found no good faith explanation for the delay in filing the allegations that occurred more than a year before the application was filed.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to amend his human rights application to include allegations of reprisal and additional remedies related to sick, disability, and pension entitlements.

The respondent did not object, provided it could file an amended response.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding the proposed amendments flowed directly from the original allegations of discrimination and were closely connected in time and substance.

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

The applicant's union requested to intervene to address its actions regarding the allegations.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter was settled and dealt with in another proceeding.

The Tribunal scheduled a preliminary hearing to determine the respondent's request for dismissal.