Naomi Overend

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment against her employer, Midyanta Community Services, and the Somali Immigrant Aid Organization (SIAO).

The SIAO requested to be removed as a party, arguing there were no allegations against it.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding no allegations of discrimination or engagement of a social area under the Code against the SIAO.

The Tribunal also granted the applicant's request to amend her application to include recent allegations, noting the early stage of the proceedings and the respondent's consent.

The applicant, who alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, requested an interim remedy of $10,000 to pay for medical treatment in Peru.

He also requested that the hearing be held at the Canadian Embassy in Lima or via Skype.

The Tribunal denied the interim remedy, finding it lacked the required signed declaration and had no correlation to the allegations of discrimination.

The Tribunal also denied the requests for an alternate hearing location and format, noting the unreasonableness of holding a hearing at the embassy and the Tribunal's policy against conducting hearings via Skype.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding requested an early order for the production of his pre-hiring screening file from a third-party firm.

The Tribunal denied the request as premature.

Under Rule 16 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, early production is only permitted in exceptional circumstances, which the applicant failed to establish.

The Tribunal noted the applicant could renew the request during the regular disclosure process.

The respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceeding seeking early production of employment records from the applicant's new employer.

The Tribunal noted that under Rule 16, disclosure is triggered by the issuance of a Notice of Hearing, which had not yet occurred.

As the respondent failed to identify any exceptional circumstances to justify early production, the request was denied as premature.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of reprisal under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requesting submissions on jurisdiction, as the applicant's narrative did not identify how the respondent subjected her to reprisal for claiming or enforcing a right under the Code.

The Tribunal found no nexus between the allegations of unfairness and a Code ground.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in services on the basis of disability against the respondent regarding accommodation for the LSAT.

The respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceeding seeking an order requiring the applicant to consent to the release of sensitive medical and educational information before filing its Response, and an extension of time.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting the respondent cited no authority for requiring consent to disclose information needed for its Response.

The respondent was ordered to file its Response within seven days.

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

The respondent sought early dismissal under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application had been dealt with in a prior Small Claims Court action.

The Tribunal found that the Small Claims Court action had been dismissed on consent without dealing with the substance of the application, and denied the request for early dismissal.

The Tribunal also declined to dismiss the application for naming the respondent by its trade name, instead amending the style of cause to reflect the correct legal entity.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be dismissed against it, arguing that the proper respondent was an independent contractor operating a ServiceOntario office.

The Tribunal dismissed the request as premature, finding that the question of the respondent's liability required evidence and argument at a hearing.

The Tribunal noted that neither party had added the independent contractor as a respondent, and reminded the parties that remedial orders can only be made against named parties.

The respondent in a human rights application alleging employment discrimination on the basis of place of origin filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking particulars.

The applicant did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide adequate particulars, as many allegations lacked names, dates, and key conversational details.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide specific particulars by a set deadline, failing which the application could be dismissed as abandoned.

The respondents in a human rights application alleging employment discrimination brought requests to remove three individual respondents and to order the early production of the applicant's medical documents.

The Tribunal applied the factors from Persaud and removed two individual respondents whose alleged conduct was not central to the application, but retained the applicant's supervisor against whom specific allegations and remedies were directed.

The Tribunal denied the request for early production of medical documents as premature, noting that the Notice of Hearing had not yet been issued and no exceptional circumstances were demonstrated.

The franchisor requested an order to remove itself as a respondent to a human rights application alleging sexual harassment and solicitation at a franchisee's restaurant.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding it premature to determine the franchisor's liability without evidence of the legal relationship and franchise agreement, which should be assessed at a hearing.

The franchisor brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings to remove itself as a respondent to an application alleging sexual harassment and sexual solicitation at a franchisee's restaurant.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding it premature to determine the franchisor's liability without a factual basis regarding the legal relationship between the franchisor and franchisee.

The Tribunal also directed the parties to provide submissions on consolidating the application with a related file.

The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application on the basis of delay.

The applicant argued that new facts or evidence existed and cited mental illness and fear of reprisal as reasons for the delay.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not present any new facts that could not have been obtained earlier, and that the issues of mental illness and fear of reprisal had already been addressed in the original decision.

The Request for Reconsideration was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of family status and creed.

He described his creed as a belief in being truthful, rooted in his Catholic faith, and alleged he was forced to modify invoice dates against his beliefs.

The Tribunal found no evidence of differential treatment based on his religious beliefs and noted he had not requested accommodation for his creed.

The Tribunal concluded it lacked jurisdiction over the creed allegation and struck that ground from the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination regarding the apprehension of her infant son by the children's aid society.

The last alleged incident of discrimination occurred almost three years prior to filing, well outside the one-year time limit under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide submissions explaining the delay.

The applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for why she did not pursue her rights in a timely manner.

Consequently, the Tribunal found no evidence that the delay was incurred in good faith and dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to comply with the Tribunal's Rules of Practice regarding the disclosure of witness lists, witness statements, and documents 45 days prior to the hearing.

Despite a Case Assessment Direction warning that failure to comply could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned, the applicant did not provide the required materials or request an extension.

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

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

The applicant subsequently passed away.

The Tribunal contacted the applicant's estate to determine if it intended to continue the application, but received no response.

The application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

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

The respondent was granted an extension to file a Response but only submitted a draft Response without the required summary of facts and defences, noting its representative was away.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision ordering the respondent to file a completed Response within one week, along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice under Rule 5.5.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to add three principals of the corporate respondent as individual respondents, following their assertion that they were no longer proprietors of the company.

The Tribunal applied the test from Sigrist and Carson, finding that the individuals' conduct was a central issue and that the change in ownership raised concerns about the corporate respondent's ability to remedy the alleged Code infringement.

The request to add the individual respondents was granted.

The applicant filed human rights applications alleging sexual harassment and reprisal during her employment as an occupational nurse at a nuclear facility.

Several respondents requested summary dismissal of the applications against them.

The Tribunal dismissed the applications against the corporate respondents, finding no reasonable prospect of proving they were the applicant's employers or vicariously liable for the alleged conduct.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the applications against two union stewards, finding that their alleged request for the applicant to drop her internal complaint required a full hearing to determine if it constituted a Code violation.

The Tribunal also directed the parties to provide submissions on whether the matter falls under federal jurisdiction.