Naomi Overend

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

The respondent failed to file a Response within the required timeframe and failed to respond to a subsequent Interim Decision directing it to do so.

The Tribunal found that the respondent had received notice and chose not to participate.

Pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal deemed the respondent to have waived all rights to further notice or participation and ordered that the matter proceed to an in-person hearing without the respondent.

The respondents in a human rights application brought two Requests for Order During Proceedings.

The first request, to require the applicant to be represented by a next friend, was dismissed as moot because the applicant had turned 18 since the request was filed.

The second request, to amend the Response to include a defence based on the definition of age in section 10(1) of the Human Rights Code, was granted on consent, as the applicant did not oppose the amendment and there was no apparent prejudice.

The applicant filed a human rights application more than seven years after his last day of work with the respondent.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to delay.

The Tribunal found that the ongoing absence from work was not a continuing contravention of the Code.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the delay was not incurred in good faith, as the applicant's medical conditions did not prevent him from pursuing other legal avenues, and waiting for a union grievance to conclude was not a valid excuse.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario and one of its adjudicators, alleging discrimination and reprisal after a previous application was dismissed as abandoned.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction due to judicial immunity.

The Tribunal held that the doctrine of judicial immunity shields administrative tribunals and their adjudicators from complaints about their conduct in an adjudicative capacity, even where a breach of natural justice is alleged.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to amend his human rights application to add new allegations of sexual harassment, physical threats, and discrimination based on accent.

The respondents opposed the request, arguing prejudice due to the delay of 24-30 months since the alleged incidents.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay and that the new allegations would significantly alter the case the respondents had to meet, causing prejudice.

The request to add the new allegations was denied, but the request to add further particulars to the existing reprisal allegation was granted.

The respondent in a human rights application sought an order for early production of documents, specifically medical records, prior to the issuance of a Notice of Hearing.

The Tribunal denied the request as premature, noting that under its Rules of Procedure, document production is triggered by the Notice of Hearing.

Early production is only ordered in exceptional circumstances, which were not present here, as the respondent had already been able to file a detailed Response and the matter was proceeding to mediation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment leading to her termination.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because the termination and related suspensions were already the subject of a pending grievance arbitration before the Grievance Settlement Board.

The Tribunal granted the deferral, noting the complete overlap of issues and the arbitrator's jurisdiction to apply human rights law, while preserving the applicant's right to reactivate the application if the human rights issues were not adequately addressed.

The applicant, a bus driver with OC Transpo, filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of ancestry, ethnic origin, and disability.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed on the basis that OC Transpo is a federally regulated business.

The Tribunal found that OC Transpo regularly engages in inter-provincial transportation and therefore falls exclusively under federal jurisdiction.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the Toronto Police Services Board.

The Board requested to dismiss portions of the application for delay and to dismiss the entire application under s. 34(11) of the Human Rights Code due to a concurrent civil action.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss for delay, finding the application timely based on the applicant's clarification.

The Tribunal also denied the s. 34(11) request, finding the civil action and human rights application relied on different legal theories and sought remedies for different wrongs.

The Tribunal added the Chief of Police as a respondent on consent, directed further submissions regarding adding an individual officer, and denied the applicant's premature request for information.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be deferred pending the determination of the applicant's claim to the Ministry of Labour under the Employment Standards Act.

The Tribunal noted that deferral is a discretionary measure to prevent concurrent legal processes dealing with the same issues.

However, because neither party provided substantive submissions on the deferral request, the Tribunal declined to defer the application.

The request was denied, with the Tribunal noting that any relevant findings from the ESA claim could be considered later.

The applicant requested reconsideration of an interim decision that dismissed her human rights application against the Ontario Labour Relations Board on the basis of judicial immunity.

She also requested an oral hearing.

The Tribunal denied the request for an oral hearing, noting that matters protected by judicial immunity are outside its jurisdiction.

The Tribunal also denied the request for reconsideration, finding that the applicant was merely attempting to re-argue her position and had not demonstrated that the interim decision conflicted with established case law or that other factors outweighed the public interest in finality.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal dismiss the applicant's human rights application as an abuse of process.

The applicant had previously filed grievances regarding the same subject matter, which were deferred on consent.

After an arbitrator was appointed and mediation occurred, the applicant withdrew her grievances and reactivated her Tribunal application.

The respondent argued this constituted forum shopping.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's decision to proceed before the Tribunal instead of arbitration was not, on its face, an abuse of process.

The respondent's request to dismiss the application was denied.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision dismissing her human rights application as untimely.

She relied on Rule 26.5(a), arguing that a newly obtained doctor's report constituted new evidence explaining her delay.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant failed to explain why the medical evidence could not have been obtained earlier, and noted that the doctor's letter did not support her claim that the delay was based on medical advice.

The respondent condominium corporation requested that the Tribunal defer the applicant's human rights application pending the outcome of arbitration proceedings under the Condominium Act regarding noise complaints.

The applicant alleged that the noise complaints and the respondents' response to them constituted discrimination and harassment on the basis of family status.

The Tribunal dismissed the request to defer, finding that the Condominium Act process would only resolve the factual issue of whether the noise was a nuisance, and would not adjudicate the ultimate human rights issues or provide the applicant with a remedy.

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

The applicant's union, the Canadian Auto Workers, Local 195, filed a Request to Intervene, which the Tribunal granted, noting that a union nearly always has an interest in an application brought by a member of its bargaining unit.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Code or as an abuse of process, citing a Board of Referees decision denying Employment Insurance and a prior grievance settlement.

The Tribunal deferred the request to dismiss to the hearing on the merits.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in services by the respondent college and two individuals.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed for delay, as the last alleged incident occurred more than one year before filing.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, noting that pursuing internal academic appeals does not justify delaying a human rights application.

The application was dismissed as the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability.

The respondent failed to file a Response despite being served and cautioned in a previous interim decision.

The Tribunal deemed the respondent to have waived its right to participate and accepted all allegations in the application.

The Tribunal also directed the applicant to clarify whether he had filed a separate appeal regarding his WSIB claim, as the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over WSIB appeals.

The respondents requested to dismiss the human rights application under s. 45.1 of the Code and for delay.

The applicant had filed an Employment Standards Act claim for termination and severance pay, which was denied and appealed to the OLRB.

The Tribunal found that s. 45.1 did not apply because the ESA process was ongoing and dealt with a narrow issue that did not address the substance of the human rights application.

The Tribunal also dismissed the delay argument, finding the application was filed within one year of the last incident in a series.

The respondents' requests were dismissed.

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

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, along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice and deem the respondent to have accepted the allegations.

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

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation session and subsequently failed to respond to a Tribunal direction warning that failure to respond would result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.