Naomi Overend

The applicant in a human rights proceeding alleging disability discrimination and reprisal brought a request for orders during the proceeding.

He sought extensive production of documents from the respondents and an order anonymizing his identity to protect his child and his future employment prospects.

The Tribunal denied the request for production as premature, noting the matter had not yet been scheduled for a hearing.

The Tribunal also denied the anonymization request, finding the applicant's concerns about future employment were too speculative to outweigh the open court principle, and that the presence of sensitive medical information or a child did not justify anonymization in these circumstances.

The personal respondent requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that awarded the applicant compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The respondent argued that new evidence, discovered via a Google search, showed the applicant coached a high school wrestling team, which contradicted her claim of having a disability.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the alleged new evidence was based on a typographical error and that the respondent failed to demonstrate that the information could not reasonably have been obtained earlier.

The respondent requested that the human rights application alleging sexual harassment be dismissed or deferred pending the outcome of the applicant's claim for severance and vacation pay under the Employment Standards Act.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application under s. 45.1 of the Code because the other proceeding had not yet dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal also declined to defer the application, finding no apparent overlap in remedies and insufficient information to determine factual overlap between the two processes.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to amend her human rights application.

She sought to remove several grounds of discrimination, add the ground of disability, remove a personal respondent, and add a factual allegation regarding a question asked during her interview.

The respondents did not file a response.

The Tribunal granted all requested amendments, finding no prejudice to the respondents given their prior awareness of the disability allegations and the ample time remaining before the scheduled hearing.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in the provision of services and housing on the basis of age and receipt of public assistance.

The respondents requested the removal of the Ministry of the Attorney General as a respondent and the deferral of the application pending a decision by the Social Benefits Tribunal.

The applicant consented to these requests and asked to add the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing as a respondent.

The Tribunal granted the requests on consent, amending the title of proceedings and deferring the matter.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in housing.

During the proceedings, the respondents' representative informed the Tribunal that the subject property had been sold.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondents to produce a redacted copy of the sale agreement.

The Tribunal further directed that if the respondents take the position that the new owner assumed the liabilities of the building, they must provide notice of the application to the new owner and name it as an additional respondent.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) regarding its adjudication of her case and the lack of diaper changing facilities at its premises.

The OLRB requested that the application be dismissed based on judicial immunity.

The Tribunal dismissed the portion of the application relating to the OLRB's adjudicative actions, finding that judicial immunity shields adjudicators from such claims.

The allegation regarding diaper changing facilities was allowed to continue.

The applicant's request for production of the OLRB file was dismissed as moot and premature.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by her insurance company after a dispute over a home inspection led to the non-renewal of her insurance.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application did not identify any specific acts of discrimination based on a prohibited ground.

The applicant's response alleged general racism in her community and reprisal, but failed to articulate a right under the Code that she was enforcing.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the completion of a grievance arbitration based on some of the same facts.

The respondent supported deferral, while the applicant and the union opposed it.

The Tribunal declined to defer the application, finding that the scope of the human rights application was much broader than the single-issue grievance and that the arbitration would not be heard until at least May 2012.

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

The applicant also had a concurrent grievance proceeding commenced by his union based on the same facts.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer, to which the union filed written submissions in support.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process, noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority to decide human rights claims.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and sex, related to pregnancy accommodation.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant's union had already commenced a grievance proceeding based on the same facts.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process, noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority to enforce human rights obligations and that deferral is the normal approach to avoid concurrent proceedings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment more than two years after the last alleged incident.

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

The applicant claimed the delay was due to medical advice regarding post-traumatic stress disorder and erroneous legal advice.

After the applicant failed to comply with a Case Assessment Direction requiring medical evidence to support her claim, the Tribunal found no evidence that the delay was incurred in good faith.

The application was dismissed.

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

The Tribunal compared the Application and the Statement of Claim and found the allegations were widely divergent.

Because the civil action did not allege a breach of the Code or seek Code remedies, the Tribunal concluded the application was not barred and denied the respondent's request for dismissal.

The applicant alleged discrimination in housing on multiple grounds after being advised she was 'over-housed' under the Social Housing Reform Act regulations and required to apply for a transfer to maintain rent-geared-to-income assistance.

At the hearing, the applicant conceded that the alleged harassment was on 'humanitarian grounds' rather than Code grounds.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the Region of Halton and the related allegations against the Co-op.

The applicant then withdrew the remaining allegations on consent.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment, having previously commenced a civil action for wrongful dismissal.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code or deferred pending the civil action, and alleged the applicant violated the deemed undertaking rule by relying on an email obtained during civil discovery.

The Tribunal allowed the applicant's request to amend her application, and denied the respondent's requests to dismiss and defer, finding insufficient overlap between the proceedings.

The Tribunal scheduled a teleconference hearing to receive submissions on whether relying on the discovery document constitutes an abuse of process.

The applicant, a police officer, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer pending the outcome of the applicant's grievance.

After the union decided not to pursue the grievance to arbitration, the respondent requested deferral to the applicant's duty of fair representation complaint under the Labour Relations Act.

Because the Labour Relations Act does not apply to police officers, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed that complaint.

Finding no other proceeding to which it could appropriately defer, the Tribunal ordered the human rights application to proceed.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application against the respondent police service for being untimely.

The applicant argued that she had recently obtained police disclosure containing evidence of discrimination and referenced a news article about another complaint against the respondent.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the police disclosure issue was already canvassed in the original decision and that the news article did not constitute new, relevant evidence under Rule 26.5.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application as untimely.

The applicant argued the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence regarding the discoverability principle.

The Tribunal found no conflict with established jurisprudence, noting the applicant had substantial awareness of the alleged harm 15.5 years prior to filing his application.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

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

Before mediation, the respondent obtained an Initial Order under the Companies' Creditors' Arrangement Act (CCAA), which stayed proceedings against it.

The applicant requested that her application be stayed until the CCAA stay is lifted.

The Tribunal ordered the application stayed until the CCAA stay is no longer in effect, requiring the applicant to advise the Tribunal within 30 days of the stay being lifted if she intends to proceed.

In an interim decision regarding a human rights application alleging discrimination in the provision of services, the Tribunal addressed three preliminary matters.

The applicant's request to amend the application was granted on consent.

The individual respondent's request for an order compelling the organizational respondent to produce hospital records relating to her treatment of the applicant was granted under the Personal Health Information Protection Act, as the records were relevant to the allegations.

The organizational respondent was ordered to file its response, though an erratum later noted the response had already been filed but inadvertently omitted from the file.