Naomi Overend

The applicant requested a last-minute adjournment of her scheduled hearing because her employer did not want her to be absent from work.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that under its Practice Direction, late adjournments are only granted in extraordinary circumstances.

When the applicant failed to attend the hearing, the Tribunal found she had intentionally disregarded its direction to attend and dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing two days prior, citing work commitments.

The respondent did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, noting that under its Practice Direction, requests made outside the initial 14-day period require extraordinary circumstances.

Work commitments do not constitute an exceptional circumstance justifying a late adjournment.

The applicant, a municipal councillor and director of the respondent holding corporation, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of family status after the board moved its meeting start times to 3:30 p.m., which conflicted with her childcare obligations.

The Tribunal dismissed the discrimination claim, finding that as a corporate director, the applicant was not in an employment relationship under the Code.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of family status discrimination because she did not demonstrate reasonable efforts to find alternative childcare solutions or that the start time actually excluded her from participating.

The Tribunal deferred its decision on the applicant's reprisal claim, requesting further submissions from the parties.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend her Application, which the Tribunal granted in a prior interim decision.

The Tribunal subsequently discovered that a response from the respondent City of Kingston had been misplaced and was not considered.

Upon reviewing the misplaced response, which consented to the amendment subject to certain conditions, the Tribunal confirmed its prior order allowing the amendment, while acknowledging the respondent's caveat that it was not admitting the factual allegations.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in housing, specifically that he was unfairly evicted because the respondent did not like him.

He later amended his application to check off race, colour, and sexual orientation, noting he was a white, heterosexual male.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the narrative failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination linked to a Code ground.

The applicant's submissions in response did not address the lack of a link to the Code grounds.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it plain and obvious that the subject matter did not fall within its jurisdiction.

The applicant, previously declared a vexatious litigant by the Tribunal, sought leave to proceed with a new application alleging that the respondent cancelled his insurance contract based on his ancestry and place of origin.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish any connection between the cancellation and a prohibited ground under the Human Rights Code, relying only on his assumption that no other reason existed.

As the applicant did not satisfy the onus to show the application was a legitimate assertion of his rights, leave to proceed was denied and the application was dismissed.

The respondent requested reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision issued after a hearing in which the respondent did not participate.

The respondent claimed it did not receive notice of the proceeding or hearing due to an outdated corporate address, although it had sent a response to the Tribunal which was never received.

The Tribunal accepted that the respondent did not have notice of the proceedings and granted the request for reconsideration, quashing the previous decision and remitting the matter to the normal process.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend his human rights application against a correctional facility.

The respondent objected, arguing the amendments were unnecessary or insufficiently particularized.

The Tribunal allowed the amendments regarding dietary issues to the extent they clarified the allegations.

The Tribunal also allowed the amendment regarding alleged racial taunts, subject to the inclusion of specific particulars provided by the applicant in earlier submissions to clarify the scope of the allegation.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

A summary hearing was scheduled to determine if the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant's representative requested to withdraw the application with conditions shortly before the hearing, and then advised they would not attend.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled teleconference hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application which was deferred on consent.

The applicant subsequently passed away.

The Tribunal sent a notice to the Estate seeking details on whether an Estate Trustee had been appointed and warning that the application might be dismissed if no response was received.

Having received no communication from the Estate, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application while concurrently pursuing a grievance alleging unfair and unjust termination.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the resolution of the grievance.

The applicant opposed deferral, arguing his concerns had been silenced in previous arbitrations.

The Tribunal deferred the application, noting that the central issues would be addressed in the grievance process and it would be unfair to require the respondent to participate in concurrent proceedings.

The applicant filed a human rights application naming two organizational respondents and two unnamed individual respondents (Jane Doe and Jane Doe 2).

The applicant brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to compel the organizational respondents to disclose the names and contact information of the individual respondents.

The organizational respondents opposed the request, arguing the individuals were not properly named as respondents.

The Tribunal held that arguments regarding whether the individuals were proper respondents were premature and ordered the organizational respondents to provide the identities and contact information of the unnamed individuals.

The applicants requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed their Application for Contravention of Settlement without a full hearing.

The original decision found the alleged breach of settlement regarding condominium rules to be de minimis.

The adjudicator granted the reconsideration request, finding that the Tribunal had unfairly relied on disputed facts and the respondents' version of events without hearing evidence.

A full hearing on the merits was ordered.

The applicant, who has profound hearing loss, alleged discrimination with respect to services because the Town of Fort Erie permitted on-street parking, making it dangerous for him to exit his driveway.

He also named the owners of a convenience store across the street as respondents.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the convenience store owners, finding no social area engaged under the Code.

However, the Tribunal refused to dismiss the application against the Town, finding that the challenge to the parking by-law and its alleged adverse impact required further evidence.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend her Application to reflect an agreement among the parties regarding the proper subject matter of the dispute.

The original Application contained issues from two previously resolved Applications.

The respondent Kingston Access Services consented to the amendment, and the remaining respondent did not file a response.

The Tribunal granted the request and directed the respondents to file any amended Response within 21 days.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) on the basis that the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction, directing the applicant to respond by a specified date.

The applicant failed to respond to the NOID.

As a result, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The respondents requested an order for the production of phone records from third-party providers Rogers Communications Inc., Fido Solutions Inc., and BCE Inc. Rogers indicated that it does not retain text message content and that call detail records from 2012 had been purged.

Consequently, no order was made against Rogers or Fido.

As BCE Inc. did not file submissions opposing the request, the Tribunal ordered BCE Inc. to produce the requested text and call records for the specified period.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his application on the basis that he had commenced a civil proceeding concerning the same factual allegations.

The request for reconsideration was filed 11 months after the decision, well beyond the 30-day limit set by the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant provided no explanation for the delay and failed to set out any basis for review of the original decision.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The respondents requested the summary dismissal of a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal in the termination of a social work practicum, arguing there was no reasonable prospect of success and that the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period.

The applicant also requested to add Baycrest Centre for Geriatric Care as an organizational respondent.

The Tribunal denied the requests to dismiss, finding that the factual disputes regarding the practicum's termination and the timing of events required a full hearing on the merits.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to add Baycrest as a respondent, noting it could be vicariously liable for its employees' actions and could provide effective remedies.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discriminatory discipline by her employer.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because the applicant's union had filed a grievance regarding the same disciplinary letters.

The Tribunal found that the central issues in the application would be addressed in the upcoming grievance arbitration.

To avoid concurrent proceedings and conflicting factual conclusions, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process.