Naomi Overend

The applicant filed an application alleging age discrimination regarding the respondent's policy on retiree medical benefits.

The respondent requested deferral pending a related judicial review before the Divisional Court, and the applicant's union requested intervenor status.

The Tribunal granted the union leave to intervene and, with the consent of all parties, deferred the application pending the outcome of the judicial review proceeding.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability after he was not hired for a cleaner position.

He claimed that during his second interview, he was asked an abstract question ('Is the glass half empty or half full?') which he could not answer due to his learning disability affecting his memory.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant might be able to establish a link between his disability and his inability to answer the question, and therefore declined to dismiss the application, directing the respondent to file a Response.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in education on the basis of disability and reprisal against a college and 12 individual respondents.

The respondent requested the removal of the individual respondents, to which the applicant consented.

The applicant also requested early production of documents, which the Tribunal dismissed as premature because the Notice of Hearing had not yet been issued and no exceptional circumstances were identified.

The Tribunal ordered the removal of the individual respondents and directed the parties to provide their positions on consolidating the matter with a related application.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceeding seeking to remove three individually named respondents and requesting early production of documents.

The Tribunal granted the request to remove the individual respondents on consent.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for early production of documents as premature, noting that under Rule 16, production is triggered by the Notice of Hearing, and no exceptional circumstances warranted early production.

The Tribunal also directed the parties to provide their positions on consolidating this application with a related one.

The applicant filed two human rights applications against the school board and individual respondents alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and ethnic origin, and reprisal.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision consolidating the two applications on consent, allowing the applicant to amend the relief sought, and removing an individual respondent from the proceeding because the allegations related to her employment role and the school board acknowledged responsibility for any remedy.

The respondent requested an early dismissal of the human rights application, arguing it was barred by section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code because the applicant had commenced a civil action for wrongful dismissal.

The Tribunal found that while the civil claim referenced reprisal, it primarily dealt with the absence of cause for termination and did not seek Code remedies or allege discriminatory treatment during employment.

The request for early dismissal was denied.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceeding seeking production of documents from the respondents.

The respondents failed to comply with the Tribunal's Notice of Confirmation of Hearing, which required the exchange of arguably relevant documents.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to comply with Rule 16.1 of the Rules of Procedure within one week.

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to remove the individual respondent, Dorothy Bower, from the application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

Applying the Persaud framework, the Tribunal found that while there was no issue regarding the corporate respondent's deemed liability or ability to remedy the alleged infringement, the applicant's Reply indicated that the individual respondent's conduct was a central issue in the proceeding.

The request to remove the individual respondent was therefore dismissed.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code alleging discrimination in employment more than one year after the last incident.

A Notice of Intent to Dismiss was issued due to the delay.

The applicant's counsel submitted that the delay was caused by their own inadvertence and not the applicant's conduct.

The Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the delay was not incurred in good faith, and allowed the application to proceed.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to amend her application to add mental disability as a ground of discrimination and to provide further particulars on the impact of the alleged discrimination.

She also requested early production of documents and a pre-hearing protocol.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, finding the amendments minor and without prejudice to the respondents.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the requests for early document production and a pre-hearing protocol as premature, noting that the Notice of Hearing had not yet been issued and no exceptional circumstances warranted early production under Rule 16.

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

The Tribunal previously deferred the application pending the outcome of the applicant's WSIB claim.

Following the WSIB's decision, the applicant filed a request to reactivate her application.

The respondent did not file any response submissions.

The Tribunal granted the request to proceed and directed that the matter be scheduled for mediation or a hearing.

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

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

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations regarding snow removal and verbal abuse by staff due to delay, as they were filed outside the one-year limitation period without a good faith explanation.

The remaining allegations concerning a neighbour's abuse and the respondent's failure to intervene were dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success, as the applicant failed to establish a nexus between the alleged treatment and his disability.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, place of origin, ethnic origin, and age after the respondent failed to hire him for a Vice President position.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide evidence linking the respondent's decision not to interview him to any prohibited grounds.

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

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

Before the respondents filed their response, the applicant requested extensive document production to demonstrate the respondents' history of 'shady requests/actions'.

The Tribunal denied the request as premature, noting that early production is only allowed in exceptional circumstances, which were not present.

Additionally, the Tribunal directed the parties to provide written submissions on whether the applicant's stated creed—a belief in being truthful—falls within the Tribunal's jurisdiction as a sincerely held religious belief.

The respondent Toronto Police Services Board requested to defer the human rights application pending the completion of the applicant's civil proceeding against it and an individual police officer.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the level of duplication between the proceedings was minimal and the civil action was in its very early stages.

The applicant, a secondary school principal, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race, ethnic origin, age, and reprisal.

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

The applicant alleged he was reprised against for being named as a respondent in a previous human rights complaint.

The Tribunal held that the protection against reprisal under section 8 of the Code does not extend to respondents in human rights proceedings.

Finding no reasonable prospect of success on the reprisal claim or the other grounds, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The respondent sought early dismissal of the human rights application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that a prior complaint to the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) regarding the Ontario Pension Benefits Act had appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the FSCO proceeding did not address the applicant's core allegation that his exclusion from the defined benefits pension plan constituted age discrimination.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent restaurant.

The Tribunal previously deemed the respondent to have accepted all allegations after it failed to respond and appeared to be evading service.

A part-owner subsequently contacted the Tribunal, explaining that correspondence had been directed to a former manager and returned unopened due to a change in ownership.

The Tribunal accepted this explanation, set aside its previous decision, accepted the late response, and directed the matter to a one-day hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal and generalized bullying by her employer, which led to a medical leave.

The Tribunal dismissed the reprisal and bullying allegations for lack of jurisdiction, as they had no nexus to a protected ground under the Code.

However, the Tribunal found that allegations regarding the employer's failure to accommodate her return to work on staggered hours could potentially amount to discrimination on the basis of disability.

As the application was filed more than one year after the last alleged incident, the Tribunal ordered a preliminary hearing to determine whether the delay was incurred in good faith.

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

The applicant's union, CUPE, filed a request to intervene, and the respondents requested that the application be deferred pending the outcome of a concurrent grievance process.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene, noting that a union typically has an interest in an application brought by a member.

The Tribunal also granted the respondents' request to defer the application, finding significant overlap between the grievance and the human rights application, and noting the applicant did not oppose the deferral.