Naomi Overend

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

The applicant's union requested intervenor status, which the Tribunal granted, noting that a union typically has an interest in an application brought by a member of its bargaining unit.

The applicant also requested early production of documents to determine their authenticity.

The Tribunal denied the request for production as premature, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify departing from the standard rule that production is triggered by the issuance of a Notice of Hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, specifically regarding threats and accusations related to his return to work following a workplace injury.

The respondents brought a request to defer the application pending the completion of ongoing Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) proceedings dealing with the appropriateness of the return to work plan.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that deferral was the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed to avoid the risk of inconsistent findings of fact between the Tribunal and the WSIB.

The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination in housing on the basis of disability, sexual orientation, and age.

The respondent James Quinn failed to file a Response to the Application, despite a previous Interim Decision directing him to do so and warning him of the consequences.

The Tribunal applied Rule 5.5 of its Rules of Procedure and deemed the respondent to have waived all rights with respect to further notice or participation in the proceeding.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code more than one year after the last incident of alleged discrimination.

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

The applicant submitted that the delay was caused by a high-risk pregnancy, bed rest, and subsequent childcare responsibilities.

The Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The Tribunal directed that the application continue, leaving the respondents the opportunity to make further submissions on the issue of delay.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intention to Dismiss (NOID) because the respondents appeared to be federally regulated.

The applicant did not file submissions on jurisdiction but requested a decision based on previously filed materials.

The Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the application was outside its jurisdiction, as the allegations involved a warehouse operation.

The Tribunal directed that the application be processed and required the respondents to file a response and submissions on jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in services by the respondent transit commission.

Prior to filing its Response, the respondent brought a Request for an Order During Proceeding seeking early production of a bus transfer retained by the applicant, arguing it was necessary to identify the bus operator involved.

The Tribunal found exceptional circumstances justified early production under Rule 16, as the applicant did not oppose the request and the document was necessary for the respondent to file its Response.

The request for production was granted.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the respondent police services board approximately 20 months after the last alleged incident.

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

The applicant failed to provide written submissions explaining the delay.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it was filed outside the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code and there was no evidence that the delay was incurred in good faith.

The applicant filed two human rights applications against York University, CUPE, and several individuals.

The Tribunal considered preliminary issues including consolidation, deferral to a grievance process, removal of personal respondents, and failure to file responses.

The Tribunal ordered the applications consolidated, finding common issues of fact and law and no prejudice to the respondents.

The Tribunal denied the request to defer to the grievance process because the grievance had not advanced in two years and there was a potential conflict of interest with the union.

The applicant was directed to provide submissions on the removal of personal respondents, and the individual respondents who failed to file responses were given two weeks to do so.

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

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed for delay, as the alleged incidents occurred between 2005 and 2008, more than one year before the application was filed in September 2010.

The Tribunal found that the application was filed outside the one-year time limit set out in section 34 of the Human Rights Code and that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay to establish good faith.

The application was dismissed.

The respondent University brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings to strike portions of the applicant's revised narrative, clarify a previous phasing order, and establish a revised schedule.

The Tribunal declined to amend its previous order bifurcating the hearing into two phases, finding that evidence regarding the applicant's involvement in equity-seeking initiatives was relevant to the first phase concerning the decanal search.

The Tribunal also dismissed the request to strike contextual allegations as premature, noting that arguments about delay and proportionality would be addressed in phase two.

The respondents were granted leave to file revised Responses and a timeline for document disclosure was established.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination in housing against the respondents.

In a previous interim decision, the Tribunal deemed the corporate respondent to have waived its right to participate due to an apparent failure to file a response.

The individual respondent subsequently clarified that her previously filed response was intended to be on behalf of both herself and the corporate respondent.

The Tribunal revoked its previous order and permitted the corporate respondent to participate in the proceedings.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of age and reprisal.

A summary hearing was held to determine whether the application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had previously raised concerns about age discrimination in a letter to the employer, linking his recent discipline to his decision to continue working past age 65.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant might be able to establish a nexus between the alleged events and the protected grounds, and therefore declined to dismiss the application.

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

The respondent employer requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the application because the applicant had also filed a grievance relating to her termination.

The applicant did not file submissions opposing the deferral.

Given the significant overlap in subject matter between the grievance and the application, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process.

The respondent City of Toronto brought a request to defer the human rights application pending the outcome of a related judicial review concerning the closure of a dog off-leash area.

The applicant alleged that the City's decision to close the park relied on discriminatory considerations related to his disability.

The Tribunal denied the request to defer, finding that the judicial review did not allege discrimination and did not seek the same remedies, meaning there was no significant danger of inconsistent findings of fact or law at this stage.

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

After several scheduling issues regarding mediation, the applicant advised the Tribunal she was busy and would put the case aside.

The Tribunal subsequently requested alternate dates for mediation and warned that failure to respond might result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's correspondence.

Consequently, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

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

The Tribunal's attempt to deliver the Notice of Application to the respondent was returned as undeliverable.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide further contact information for the respondent and warned that failure to do so could result in dismissal.

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's correspondence.

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

The applicant, a part-time teacher, filed a human rights application alleging that the respondent college reprised against him for a previous application by not assigning him to teach a specific course.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing under Rule 19A to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant could not provide evidence linking the course cancellation to his previous application, relying instead on speculation and a desire for disclosure.

The Tribunal found no reasonable prospect of success and dismissed the application.

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

The Tribunal previously deferred the application pending the outcome of union grievances.

Unbeknownst to the Tribunal and the respondents, the union had already withdrawn the grievances prior to the deferral decision.

The applicant later requested to reactivate the application, which the respondents opposed due to the expiration of the 60-day time limit.

The Tribunal granted the reactivation, finding the delay did not amount to an abuse of process.

The Tribunal also denied the respondents' requests to dismiss the application for delay and under s. 45.1 of the Code, as the applicant conceded the older allegations were only for context and the sole remaining timely allegation was not the subject of any grievance.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, relating to his termination in 2008 and his union's refusal to take his case to arbitration in 2009.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for delay, as the application was filed well beyond the one-year limitation period.

The applicant argued the delay was justified because he was pursuing a duty of fair representation claim at the Ontario Labour Relations Board and experienced mental health issues.

The Tribunal found that waiting for other legal proceedings to conclude does not constitute a valid explanation for delay, and there was insufficient medical evidence that his disability prevented him from filing.

The application was dismissed for delay.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex and reprisal.

The applicant had also filed four related grievances under her collective agreement based on the same allegations.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the conclusion of the grievance proceedings.

Noting the significant overlap between the proceedings and the applicant's failure to object, the Tribunal granted the request and deferred the application.