Naomi Overend

The applicant requested that his human rights applications against the corporate and individual respondents be held in abeyance because the corporate respondent was subject to an Initial Order under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA), which stayed proceedings against it.

The applicant did not wish to proceed against the individual respondents while the corporate respondent's status remained uncertain.

The respondents did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal ordered the applications held in abeyance for up to one year, pending the resolution of the CCAA proceedings or the lifting of the stay.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application as untimely.

She argued that the Tribunal erred in finding no ongoing discrimination and in disregarding her requests for information from the respondents.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the continuing effects of alleged discrimination do not constitute ongoing discrimination, and that the discoverability doctrine did not apply because the applicant believed from the outset that her termination was discriminatory.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The employer and the applicant's union requested that the Tribunal defer the application because a grievance concerning the same facts and human rights issues was ongoing.

The Tribunal granted the request and 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 an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability after his employment was terminated following his detention and criminal charges.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that the application was not within its jurisdiction.

The applicant argued that being charged with a criminal offence constitutes a disability under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the definition of disability does not extend to being charged with a criminal offence, and the legislature specifically limited the ground of 'record of offences' to convictions.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging workplace discrimination on the basis of race and colour.

The respondents opposed the application, arguing it should be dismissed for delay and because the substance of the allegations had already been resolved through union grievances.

The applicant also sought to amend her application to add new allegations and respondents.

The Tribunal denied the request to amend due to a significant time gap and lack of nexus with the original allegations.

The Tribunal dismissed the application in its entirety, finding that the applicant failed to act with due diligence by waiting 18 months for the outcome of an internal university complaint before filing under the Code, and thus the delay was not incurred in good faith.

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 given its interest in the outcome.

The applicant also requested to amend his application to include allegations of reprisal and additional remedies, which the Tribunal permitted due to the lack of prejudice to the respondents.

Finally, the applicant's broad request for document production was denied as premature, as the matter had not yet been scheduled for a hearing.

The applicant filed an application alleging age discrimination in employment against the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services and several individual respondents.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed multiple requests for orders during proceedings.

The Tribunal removed the individual respondents, finding no compelling reason to maintain them as parties since the corporate respondent would be liable for their conduct.

The Tribunal permitted the applicant to amend her application to clarify her allegations and add subsequent competitions, but denied her requests for a Tribunal-ordered inquiry, early production of documents, and an order requiring the Human Rights Legal Support Centre to represent her.

The applicant, a resident of a housing co-operative, alleged discrimination on the basis of family status, marital status, receipt of public assistance, and reprisal after she was denied rent subsidies.

The respondent manager maintained that the subsidies were denied because the applicant consistently failed to submit required income verification forms, including proof of her mother's departure from the household.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's actions were entirely due to the applicant's refusal to comply with basic income verification requirements, not any discriminatory ground.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability regarding his wife's return to work after cancer treatment.

The applicant requested an interim remedy, which the Tribunal dismissed as he failed to demonstrate its necessity.

The respondent employer requested to strike allegations of 'past grievances' spanning 20 years prior to the cancer diagnosis; the Tribunal struck these allegations as they were out of time and lacked a good faith explanation for the delay.

The employer also requested the removal of six individual respondents.

The Tribunal granted this request, noting the employer accepted vicarious liability and there was no compelling reason to maintain the individuals as parties.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, citizenship, and ethnic origin.

The applicant also filed a concurrent grievance through his union alleging unjust dismissal and harassment.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the application pending the outcome of the grievance.

Despite the applicant's opposition and concerns regarding his union's representation, the Tribunal deferred the application, noting the factual overlap and the scheduled mediation and arbitration dates for the grievance.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sexual solicitation and reprisal in employment against a physician and the clinic.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred pending the resolution of a concurrent complaint filed with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

The Tribunal denied the request to defer, noting that the College complaint was only at the investigation stage, did not address the reprisal allegations, and could not provide remedies to the applicant.

The respondent requested an order to amend its Response to address the merits of the human rights application, after its initial request for early dismissal was denied.

The applicant did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal granted the amendment, finding no prejudice to the applicant.

The Tribunal also directed the applicant to file a Reply addressing the respondent's request to dismiss the application for failing to make out a prima facie case.

The applicant, a janitor with a mental health disability, sought an interim remedy to allow him to listen to his MP3 player at work, which he claimed mitigated his symptoms.

The respondent had banned the device for safety reasons.

The Tribunal granted the interim remedy, finding the applicant had an arguable case, the balance of harm favoured him, and the remedy was just and appropriate, provided he only used the device in non-hazardous areas.

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

The respondent requested an order for access to the applicant's occupational health and claims management file before filing its Response, as well as an extension of time to file.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the respondent needed access to the medical file to meaningfully respond to the allegations.

Access was limited to the respondent's counsel and specific employees in the occupational health department.

The respondent was granted a 35-day extension to file its Response.

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

The respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the completion of a grievance before the Grievance Settlement Board based on the same facts.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that it would not be fair, just, or expeditious to proceed with the application while the grievance process was ongoing.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant had previously filed an application with the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) under the Occupational Health and Safety Act dealing with the same issues.

Applying the factors for deferral, the Tribunal found significant overlap between the allegations and parties in both proceedings.

To avoid concurrent proceedings and the possibility of inconsistent decisions, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the OLRB process.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The respondent subsequently obtained an Initial Order under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA), which imposed a stay of proceedings.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the applicant to advise whether she intends to continue her application and to provide submissions on the effect of the CCAA stay.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing on the basis of age, family status, and association against the City of Oshawa and the Windfield Farms Community Association.

The applicant subsequently requested to withdraw the application against the Association, noting it was an inactive unincorporated association with no representative.

The Tribunal granted the request and removed the Association as a respondent.

The applicant filed an application alleging harassment and reprisal in employment, claiming her hours were reduced after she complained to the Ministry of Labour about verbal and physical harassment by her manager.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the underlying harassment was not alleged to be based on any ground protected under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction because complaining about non-Code harassment does not constitute claiming or enforcing a right under the Code, and therefore the subsequent reduction in hours could not amount to reprisal under section 8.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision to determine whether two applications alleging sex discrimination in the provision of services against the same respondent should be consolidated.

The respondent supported consolidation, while the applicants did not provide submissions.

Applying the factors from Lattey, the Tribunal found common issues of fact and law and a public interest in avoiding a multiplicity of proceedings.

The Tribunal ordered the applications consolidated pursuant to Rule 1.7(d) of its Rules of Procedure.