Naomi Overend

The corporate respondent was placed into receivership under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The respondents' counsel advised the Tribunal that the receivership effectively ended the proceeding.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the applicant to advise whether she wishes to continue her application against the corporate and/or individual respondent, and to provide submissions on the effect of the receivership if she intends to pursue the application.

The self-represented applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment against two individual respondents.

He subsequently brought requests to add his employer, Dimpflmeier Bakery Ltd., as a respondent and to remove his immediate supervisor, Danilo Raponi.

The Tribunal granted the requests, noting that under section 46.3(1) of the Human Rights Code, the employer is deemed liable for the actions of its employees in the course of their employment.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer a human rights application because of outstanding union grievances covering the same allegations.

After reviewing submissions, the Tribunal found that the grievances were not being actively pursued and the respondents considered them abandoned.

As there was no risk of overlapping proceedings or unnecessary expenditure of resources, the Tribunal declined to defer the matter and ordered the application to proceed.

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

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed several procedural requests.

The respondent's request for early production of documents was denied as premature.

The Tribunal dismissed portions of the application relating to unsafe working conditions and verbal harassment for lack of jurisdiction and delay, but declined to dismiss pre-March 2010 allegations at this stage.

The applicant's request to amend her application to add sexual harassment allegations was denied due to significant delay and prejudice to the respondent.

The respondents brought a Request for Order During Proceedings to strike out portions of the applicant's human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of creed.

The respondents argued that certain allegations, including those relating to a 2004 job offer, the applicant's wife's employment, and a 2007 workload increase, were out of time and unrelated to creed.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations concerning the applicant's wife, as they were properly the subject of a separate application.

The Tribunal permitted the applicant to call evidence on the remaining allegations at the upcoming hearing, provided he could establish a nexus between the events and his creed.

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

The applicant's union requested leave to intervene, which the Tribunal granted.

The respondent requested early dismissal under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance of the application was resolved through a prior grievance.

The Tribunal deferred the request to dismiss to a half-day preliminary hearing.

The respondent school board brought a Request for Order During Proceedings to consolidate two human rights applications, remove the individual school and personal respondents, and dismiss the applications for delay.

The Tribunal ordered the applications consolidated as they involved identical allegations.

The Tribunal removed the individual school as it is not a legal entity, and removed the personal respondents because the school board acknowledged they were acting within the scope of their employment and there was no compelling reason to keep them as parties.

The request to dismiss for delay was denied because the applications were filed within the one-year time limit, despite a delay in service.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be deferred pending the outcome of a duty of fair representation complaint filed by the applicant with the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB).

The applicant did not file a response to the request.

Given the significant overlap between the proceedings, the advanced stage of the OLRB matter, and the lack of objection from the applicant, the Tribunal exercised its discretion to defer the application pending the completion of the OLRB process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment following his termination over sexual harassment allegations.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application was filed more than one year after the termination.

The applicant argued that his ongoing attempts to have the employer investigate the allegations constituted a continuing contravention.

The Tribunal rejected this argument, finding that attempts to dispute a termination are not separate acts of discrimination.

As the applicant provided no reasonable explanation for the delay, the Tribunal found the delay was not incurred in good faith and dismissed the application.

The respondent university requested an order to change the hearing venue from Windsor to Toronto and to bifurcate the hearing.

The Tribunal denied the venue change, ordering the initial hearing dates to proceed in Windsor.

The Tribunal granted the request to bifurcate the hearing between liability and remedial phases, noting the extensive remedies sought.

The Tribunal also granted the request to bifurcate the evidence, ordering that evidence concerning the decanal search be heard prior to evidence of systemic discrimination.

Finally, the Tribunal directed the parties to provide submissions on the applicant's standing to bring a complaint of systemic discrimination.

The respondent requested the early dismissal of a human rights application under s. 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, arguing it was barred by a concurrent civil proceeding.

Alternatively, the respondent sought to defer the application pending the civil claim's outcome.

The Tribunal found that the civil claim did not allege discrimination or seek remedies under the Code, meaning s. 34(11) did not apply.

The Tribunal also declined to defer the application, noting the civil trial was at least two years away, which diminished the risk of inconsistent findings.

The requests for dismissal and deferral were denied.

The respondent requested to defer the human rights application pending the outcome of the applicant's civil proceeding against the Toronto Police Service.

The applicant alleged discrimination in services based on race, claiming the respondent falsely identified him to police, leading to a brutal detention.

The Tribunal denied the deferral request, finding that the duplicative allegations regarding police conduct were not properly against the respondent, and the civil action was still in its early stages.

The applicant, a former minister, filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of creed after the respondent ordered her to move out of the church conference boundaries.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant has a distinct creed, she failed to articulate why the respondent's treatment of her was based on that creed.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicants filed human rights applications alleging discrimination on the basis of citizenship and reprisal.

The respondents requested dismissal on the basis that the discrimination allegations were dealt with in a previous application and that the reprisal allegations, based on a civil suit and threat of litigation, were protected by absolute privilege.

The Tribunal dismissed the applications, finding that the substance of the discrimination claims had been appropriately dealt with in the prior proceeding under s. 45.1 of the Code, and that pleadings in judicial proceedings are protected by absolute privilege and cannot form the basis of a reprisal claim.

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

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

Despite receiving proper notice and confirming her understanding of the teleconference details, the applicant failed to attend the hearing.

After waiting 30 minutes, the adjudicator dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, place of origin, and perceived disability.

The respondents requested dismissal of the application on preliminary grounds.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations regarding a 2007 independent medical examination under s. 45.1 of the Code, finding they had been appropriately dealt with in a settled grievance.

The Tribunal also found no prima facie case for the race-related grounds due to a lack of nexus.

Finally, the Tribunal dismissed the entire application for delay, as it was filed outside the one-year time limit and the applicant failed to provide a good faith explanation for the delay.

The respondent sought early dismissal of the human rights application under s. 45.1 of the Code, arguing that the substance of the application was dealt with by a prior grievance settlement regarding the applicant's recall to work following a disability.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the settlement did not state the applicant accepted no suitable work was available, nor did it require future disputes to be arbitrated.

The Tribunal also directed the applicant to provide detailed submissions if he wished to pursue his request to quash Rule 21.1 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination 16 months after the last incident.

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

The applicant submitted that he initially pursued a grievance through his union and was advised by the Human Rights Legal Support Centre to complete the grievance process before filing.

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

The applicant, a probationary support worker at a group home, alleged her employment was terminated in reprisal for reporting that a resident had been yelled at by a manager.

She also alleged the respondent reprised against her by falsely reporting income to Service Canada, jeopardizing her Employment Insurance benefits.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the decision to terminate the applicant's employment for performance-related reasons was made before the respondent received her report.

The Tribunal also accepted the respondent's evidence that it did not falsely report income to Service Canada.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application was filed more than one year after the last alleged incident.

The applicant provided an explanation for the delay, citing technical issues and a medical condition.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations predating the applicant's termination in December 2009, finding no good faith explanation for the delay.

However, the Tribunal allowed the application to proceed regarding the December 2009 termination, finding it was not plain and obvious that the delay was not incurred in good faith.