Naomi Overend

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to add Great West Life as a respondent to an application alleging discrimination and harassment in employment.

The respondent objected, noting that Great West Life had not been served with the request.

The Tribunal applied the test for adding respondents and found it would not be fair to add Great West Life because the applicant failed to provide it with notice.

The request was denied.

The applicant filed two applications before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario: one alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, and a second alleging reprisal for filing the first application.

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 common issues of fact and law, a public interest in avoiding a multiplicity of proceedings, and noted the parties consented.

The applications were ordered consolidated.

The applicants alleged discrimination and reprisal on the basis of disability by the respondent housing co-op.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether the applications had no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicants alleged that discriminatory treatment began after one applicant's medical condition was disclosed, leading to the termination of his probationary membership.

The Tribunal found that the applicants might be able to establish a link between the alleged events and the prohibited ground of disability.

The Tribunal concluded that the applications had a reasonable prospect of success and directed the respondent to file a response.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination by her union on the basis of disability and age, and concurrently filed a duty of fair representation complaint with the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB).

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the OLRB complaint's outcome.

Noting the significant overlap between the proceedings, the advanced stage of the OLRB process, and the applicant's failure to object, the Tribunal exercised its discretion under Rule 14.1 to defer the application.

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

The Tribunal found that dismissal under s. 45.1 of the Code was inappropriate as the ESA proceeding was ongoing.

The Tribunal also declined to defer the application, noting that without details of the ESA claim, it was impossible to determine the level of overlap between the two proceedings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of record of offences and reprisal.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine whether the allegations were within its jurisdiction and whether the application was timely.

The Tribunal found that the allegations regarding record of offences and reprisal did not fall within the meaning of the Code.

While some allegations could constitute discrimination on the basis of disability, they occurred outside the one-year time limit.

As the applicant provided no reasonable explanation for the delay, the Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the application.

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

The respondent sought early dismissal of portions of the application.

The Tribunal dismissed the unpaid wages allegation under section 45.1 of the Code, finding it had been appropriately dealt with by an Employment Standards Officer.

The Tribunal also dismissed the reprisal allegation, as the alleged reprisal stemmed from enforcing rights under the Employment Standards Act rather than the Code.

The remaining allegations of discrimination were permitted to proceed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment and services after her position was terminated while she was on a disability-related absence.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed for delay, as it was filed more than two and a half years after the termination.

The Tribunal found that the ongoing refusal to reverse the termination decision and the continuing lack of benefits were not separate acts of discrimination but continuing effects of the original termination.

As the applicant provided no reasonable explanation for the delay, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the application.

The applicants requested an adjournment of a scheduled summary hearing because they had not yet secured counsel and had a scheduling conflict with an ODSP meeting.

The respondent objected, noting the applicants had two months' notice of the hearing date.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding the applicants failed to comply with the 10-day notice requirement for rescheduling and did not demonstrate extraordinary circumstances justifying a last-minute adjournment.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability after losing his seniority when he was moved to a new bargaining unit as an accommodation.

The respondent union requested the application be dismissed for delay, as it was filed more than a year after the last alleged incident of discrimination.

The Tribunal found that the denial of a grievance and the subsequent 'bumping' were continuing effects of the original decision, not separate acts of discrimination.

As the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, the Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss regarding the reprisal claim and certain named respondents for apparent lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant consented to removing most of the named respondents, except for the Canadian Federation of Students and one individual.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the consenting respondents and the Canadian Federation of Students, but allowed the application to proceed against the remaining individual respondent and on the ground of reprisal, finding it was not plain and obvious that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment against the Royal Canadian Legion, Dominion Command and several individuals.

Upon learning that her actual employer was Branch 479, the applicant requested to add Branch 479 as a respondent.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal ordered the removal of Dominion Command and the addition of Branch 479 as a respondent.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding sought to add 'Wilfred Laurier University Staff' as a respondent and requested early production of emails.

The faculty association sought intervenor status.

The Tribunal denied the request to add the respondent because it is not a legal entity, and denied the document production request as premature.

The Tribunal granted the faculty association's request to intervene, noting its interest as the bargaining agent for the named respondents.

The applicant filed two human rights applications alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment.

The respondents requested the removal of several individually named respondents, while the applicant sought to add more individuals and amend his application.

The Tribunal applied the Persaud factors and removed the individual respondents, noting the corporate respondents accepted liability and had the ability to remedy any proven discrimination.

The Tribunal also denied the applicant's request to add further individuals, but permitted an amendment to add the ground of sex.

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

A Notice of Intent to Dismiss was issued because the application appeared to be filed more than one year after the last incident of discrimination.

The applicant submitted that she erred in her initial filing and that her employment was actually terminated exactly one year before she attempted to file the application.

The Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the application was barred by delay and directed that the application continue.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of marital status, family status, and sex following the termination of his employment as a trainee investment advisor.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's allegations regarding marital and family status did not constitute prima facie violations of the Code, and his allegation of sex discrimination was speculative with no available evidence.

The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on race, place of origin, ethnic origin, and age, concerning job competitions in 2002 and 2004, and an ongoing failure to hire him for part-time teaching.

The respondents requested the dismissal of the 2002 and 2004 allegations for delay, and the remaining allegations for disclosing no prima facie case.

The Tribunal dismissed the 2002 and 2004 allegations, finding no evidence of good faith to justify the delay.

Regarding the remaining allegations, the Tribunal directed the applicant to provide further written submissions detailing the basis for his assertion of preferential treatment.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, claiming the respondent failed to provide modified duties following a work-related injury.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the application pending the outcome of ongoing WSIB and WSIAT proceedings regarding the applicant's entitlement to loss of earnings benefits and her cooperation in the accommodation process.

Finding a substantial overlap in the issues and a risk of inconsistent findings of fact, the Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application.

The applicant requested to defer his human rights application against the Landlord and Tenant Board until the Board rendered a decision in his landlord's eviction application.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting that deferral would not unnecessarily prolong the proceedings and would provide a more complete factual record for the summary hearing.

The respondent did not oppose the deferral.

The applicant alleged that court staff discriminated against him on the basis of race and sex during family law litigation, and engaged in reprisals.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant might be able to establish a link between the alleged events and the prohibited grounds.

The request to dismiss the application was denied, and the applicant was directed to file an amended application to include additional factual particulars.