Naomi Overend

The applicant sought to amend her human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, disability, and reprisal.

The respondents objected to the amendment.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, finding no prejudice to the respondents and noting it was preferable to have the full dispute in one application.

The Tribunal also granted the applicant's union intervenor status.

Finally, the Tribunal requested further information from the union regarding the status of related grievances before deciding whether to defer the application.

The applicant filed two applications on behalf of her sons alleging discrimination in the provision of services by the respondent school board.

The Tribunal considered whether to consolidate the applications pursuant to Rule 1.7(d) of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

Applying the factors from Lattey, the Tribunal found a compelling public interest in avoiding a multiplicity of proceedings due to the significant overlap between the applications.

The applications were ordered consolidated.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment by Ontario Power Generation at the Pickering Nuclear Power Plant.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that the respondent appeared to be a federally regulated business.

The Tribunal determined that employees in the nuclear power sector of OPG are federally regulated for human rights matters, and therefore the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction.

The application was dismissed.

The respondents requested the removal of several personal respondents from three consolidated human rights applications.

The Tribunal applied the criteria from Persaud v. Toronto District School Board to determine if there was a compelling reason to continue the proceedings against the individuals.

The Tribunal maintained the personal respondents who were directly and centrally involved in the alleged discrimination, such as the applicant's principals and superintendent.

However, the Tribunal removed individuals whose involvement was peripheral, speculative, or based solely on their institutional roles, noting that human rights legislation is meant to compensate victims rather than punish perpetrators.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in the provision of services on the basis of ethnic origin and reprisal, claiming he was improperly given a parking ticket by a by-law officer at a polling station.

He named the Town of Richmond Hill and another municipal candidate as respondents.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not allege the individual candidate was responsible for the decision to ticket him or participated in the discriminatory behaviour.

Consequently, the individual candidate was removed as a respondent to the application.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed her application against the Regional Municipality of Halton and allowed her to withdraw her application against Mariposa Co-operative Homes Inc. The applicant alleged she did not receive relevant paperwork and was unaware of a summary hearing.

The Tribunal found that no summary hearing had occurred and that the applicant, represented by counsel at the time, had voluntarily withdrawn her allegations.

The request for reconsideration was denied as there were no compelling or extraordinary circumstances to justify it.

The applicant, a paramedic, filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of creed after his employer refused him work during winter influenza outbreaks because he was not vaccinated.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant's decision not to be immunized was based on medical considerations rather than sincerely held religious beliefs.

As the Code does not protect against discrimination based on occupation or general unfairness, the application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the ground of family status, claiming his employment was terminated the day he attempted to return from parental leave.

He also filed a claim under the Employment Standards Act (ESA) regarding the same termination.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer.

The Tribunal found that deferral was appropriate because the ESA claim and the Application significantly overlap in focusing on the termination following parental leave, and there is significant overlap in available remedies.

The Application was deferred pending the outcome of the ESA claim.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

The respondent failed to file a Response by the deadline set in the Notice of Application.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondent to file a Response within 10 days, warning that failure to do so could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming the respondent to have accepted the allegations.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the applicant's human rights application alleging pregnancy discrimination pending the determination of her claim for vacation and termination pay under the Employment Standards Act.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that while there may be some factual overlap, the ESA claim did not appear to deal with the main issue in the human rights application, which was the reason for the termination of employment.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race and disability against St. Helen's Meat Packers Limited and its vice-president.

The respondents argued that the applicant was actually employed by Leslie Trucking Limited, a federally regulated inter-provincial trucking company.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was employed by Leslie Trucking Limited, which regularly and continuously transports goods beyond Ontario's borders.

Consequently, the matter falls under federal jurisdiction and the application was dismissed.

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

The respondents requested that the application be deferred pending the completion of two concurrent union grievances arising from the same workplace events.

The Tribunal found that the grievances and the application arose from the same complex web of workplace allegations and that an arbitrator had already been appointed.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process, noting that the arbitrator has the authority to apply human rights law.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and sexual orientation against St. Lawrence College, Hotel Dieu Hospital, Kingston Police, and the RCMP.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application failed to identify specific acts of discrimination.

After receiving the applicant's submissions, the Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the allegations against St. Lawrence College fell outside its jurisdiction, as the applicant alleged he was banned from campus and required to take anti-psychotic medication to return.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to particularize his allegations against the College.

The application was dismissed against the other three respondents as no differential treatment was alleged against them.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by her employer, a national telecommunications company.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that the respondent appeared to be a federally regulated business.

The applicant did not provide written submissions in response.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the respondent is a federally regulated entity falling under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of family status, marital status, and reprisal.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) as the application initially appeared to lack specific acts of discrimination based on Code grounds.

In her submissions, the applicant alleged that the personal respondent was in a conflict with her husband, resulting in poor treatment at work.

The Tribunal found that this allegation fell within the prohibition against marital status discrimination, as marital status encompasses the identity of an applicant's spouse.

The Tribunal concluded it was not plain and obvious that the application was outside its jurisdiction and directed that the application continue to be processed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability by the Toronto Police Services.

The application was deferred on consent pending the completion of proceedings before the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD).

After the OIPRD completed its review and closed its file, the applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to reactivate her application.

The respondent did not file any response submissions.

The Tribunal granted the request to reactivate the application and ordered the respondent to file its Response within 35 days.

The respondents requested the early dismissal of a human rights application under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, arguing it duplicated an ongoing civil action.

The Tribunal found that the civil action pleaded assault, battery, and negligence, but did not specifically allege a breach of equality rights or seek a remedy for a Code violation.

Consequently, the application was not barred.

The Tribunal also denied the respondents' alternative request to defer the application pending the civil proceeding, noting the lack of information on the civil action's status and the differences between the two proceedings.

The applicant brought a request to add a retired police officer as an individual respondent to his human rights application against the police services board and the Chief of Police.

The respondents opposed the request, noting that the Chief assumed responsibility for the officer's conduct and that the officer's actions were done in the course of his duties.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding no compelling juridical reason to add the individual respondent, as the corporate respondent assumed liability and the officer's retired status meant fewer specific remedies could be awarded against him personally.

A teleconference case management hearing was held regarding two human rights applications.

The Tribunal ordered the bifurcation of the first application to deal with merits separately from remedy.

The Tribunal also noted it remained seized of the second application, encouraged mediation, removed CUPE Ontario Regional as a respondent on consent, and set a schedule for written submissions regarding the removal of CUPE National as a respondent.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his application on the basis of judicial immunity.

The applicant failed to address the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5 and instead took issue with the application of the doctrine of judicial immunity.

The Tribunal found no basis to exercise its discretion to overturn the initial decision and denied the request for reconsideration.