Naomi Overend

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in services regarding a criminal sentence and related processes.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to challenge an adjudicative process.

The applicant attempted to file submissions in Chinese, which were returned with instructions to file in English or French.

The applicant failed to do so by the deadline.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that the university's student code of conduct discriminated on the basis of age because it did not apply to professors.

A summary hearing was scheduled to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to attend the teleconference hearing without explanation.

The Tribunal found that the applicant received proper notice and dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the university and several other entities.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis of delay and lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that the allegations against the university occurred in 2004, well outside the one-year time limit, and the applicant failed to provide a good faith explanation for the delay.

Furthermore, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction over allegations involving federally regulated entities and events occurring outside Ontario.

The application was dismissed.

The respondent Children's Aid Society requested an order to redact and seal documents in a human rights proceeding to protect the identity of the applicant's children, who were in the respondent's care.

The applicant did not file response submissions.

The Tribunal granted the request pursuant to section 45(8) of the Child and Family Services Act and ordered that the applicant's initials be used in the style of cause to ensure the children's identities were not revealed.

The applicant filed two identical human rights applications on behalf of her twin sons, alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in the provision of services by the respondent.

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

Applying the factors from Persaud v. Toronto District School Board, the Tribunal found a compelling public interest in avoiding a multiplicity of proceedings and ordered the applications consolidated.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on race, colour, citizenship, and disability, arising from a 1992 layoff.

The Tribunal previously dismissed the disability allegations due to delay.

The respondent provided evidence that the applicant's former counsel knew of the alleged discriminatory rehiring in 1994.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide evidence that the 15-year delay in filing the application was incurred in good faith, noting that the discoverability principle does not allow aggrieved persons to delay making a claim to gather evidence.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

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

The respondents sought early dismissal of part of the application and deferral of the remainder, arguing that the allegations were the subject of union grievances.

At a teleconference hearing, the applicant conceded that a concluded grievance had appropriately dealt with the substance of the first part of the application, and that deferral was appropriate for the remaining allegations pending an ongoing second grievance.

The Tribunal dismissed the first part of the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code and deferred the remainder.

The applicant brought a Request for Order During Proceedings to add a corporate respondent, remove an individual respondent, and amend her Application to add further particulars.

The respondents agreed to the removal of the individual but objected to the addition of the corporation, citing prejudice due to the time and expense of filing a second Response.

The Tribunal found that the parties agreed the corporation was the more appropriate party and ordered the addition of the corporate respondent and the removal of the individual respondent.

The Tribunal also allowed the applicant to amend her Application and granted the respondents 35 days to file a revised Response.

The respondents in a human rights application requested an order to hold the proceeding in abeyance until a litigation guardian was appointed for the applicant.

They argued that the applicant had been found incapable of consenting to medical treatment and that the Public Guardian and Trustee was acting as her substitute decision-maker.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that a determination of incapacity under the Health Care Consent Act is not equivalent to a finding of incapacity under the Substitute Decisions Act.

Without evidence that the applicant lacked the capacity to understand information relevant to the litigation, the Tribunal declined to impose the procedural impediment of requiring a litigation guardian.

The applicant failed to respond to an interim decision directing her to advise whether she intended to continue her application.

The corporate respondent had previously initiated restructuring under the Companies' Creditors' Arrangement Act, resulting in a stay of proceedings and the sale of substantially all its assets.

As the applicant did not communicate with the Tribunal by the specified deadline, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in housing against an organizational and an individual respondent.

The Tribunal found that the response received lacked clarity regarding the organizational respondent's ownership and management of the property.

Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that the individual respondent failed to file a complete response in violation of Rule 8 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The Tribunal directed the individual respondent to file a complete response within 5 days, warning that failure to do so could result in the matter proceeding without his participation.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application for delay.

The original application, alleging reprisal and discrimination by association, was filed 64 months after the last alleged incident.

The applicant argued the Tribunal misconstrued her allegations and that the decision conflicted with established case law.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding the applicant merely reiterated previous arguments and failed to meet the criteria for reconsideration under the Human Rights Code and Tribunal Rules.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her application under s. 53(8) of the Human Rights Code because she had previously filed a complaint with the Commission based on the same subject matter.

The applicant argued there were new facts and that the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the alleged new facts were available prior to the original decision and that the applicant failed to establish any conflict with jurisprudence or public importance.

The respondent filed a request for reconsideration of an interim decision that declined to order the applicant to consent to the release of his medical file prior to the respondent filing its Response.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the interim decision was not a 'final' decision under Rule 26 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure because it did not dispose of any central issues in the application.

The respondent was ordered to file its Response within 14 days, after which it could make further requests for medical information if necessary.

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

The applicant's union requested to intervene, which the applicant opposed.

The respondent school board requested to defer the application pending the outcome of a concurrent grievance arbitration process dealing with the same facts.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene, finding it had a requisite interest in the proceeding.

The Tribunal also granted the respondent's request to defer the application, noting that the grievance arbitrator had jurisdiction to deal with both the human rights allegations and broader labour relations matters.

The applicant requested that his human rights application be deferred pending discussions with the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) regarding jurisdiction.

The CHRC had initially declined jurisdiction, but the respondent union argued the employment relationship fell under exclusive federal jurisdiction, citing decisions from the Canada Industrial Relations Board and the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

Given the uncertainty, the Tribunal granted the request and deferred the application pending the CHRC's review.

The applicant filed an application alleging a breach of a settlement approved by the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

A Notice of Intent to Dismiss was issued suggesting the application was filed outside the six-month limitation period.

The applicant submitted that he only became aware of the alleged breach when he saw a job posting for his eliminated position on October 27, 2010.

The Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the application was filed outside the limitation period and directed that the application continue.

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

The Tribunal issued a Registrar's letter and a Case Assessment Direction requesting an update on the status of the application and warning that failure to respond would result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond to both communications.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned and closed the file.

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

The respondents brought a request for particulars concerning the first application.

The Tribunal ordered the two applications consolidated, noting the common issues of fact and law and the parties' support for consolidation.

The Tribunal also ordered the applicant to provide the requested particulars, as the matter was proceeding to a hearing and the applicant had not responded to the request.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of age and reprisal after being stopped by police near the G20 summit security area.

The respondent police service brought a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking further particulars, arguing it could not respond without details of the location, time, and identity of the officers.

The Tribunal agreed and ordered the applicant to amend his Application to provide these details within 21 days, failing which the Application would be deemed abandoned.