Naomi Overend

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal following the settlement of a previous application.

The respondents requested further particulars regarding the reprisal allegations and moved to strike a schedule containing the allegations from the previously settled application.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide the names of the individuals involved in the alleged reprisal.

The Tribunal also struck the schedule containing the previously settled allegations, noting that the respondents were entitled to rely on the full and final release signed by the applicant.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex and sexual harassment against an organizational respondent and three individual respondents.

The Tribunal addressed two preliminary requests: a request by respondents' counsel to be removed as solicitor of record for one individual respondent due to a breakdown in the solicitor/client relationship, and a request regarding whether another individual respondent should be removed as a party.

The Tribunal granted the request to remove the solicitor of record.

The Tribunal found it unnecessary to reinstate the individual respondent as he had never been formally removed, and declined to remove him on its own initiative.

The applicant requested to defer her Application until her Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) claim was completed.

The respondents and the union did not file submissions in response.

The Tribunal found it appropriate to defer consideration of the Application until the WSIB process concluded and ordered the deferral.

The applicant filed a human rights application.

In his response, the respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the completion of a proceeding before the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The applicant replied that his LTB application had already been dismissed, and that the landlord's ongoing LTB application was for eviction and based on different facts.

The Tribunal found that the claim on which the respondent based his request to defer was no longer ongoing.

The request to defer was denied and the Tribunal ordered the application to proceed.

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

The respondent requested the application be dismissed on the basis that it is a wholly owned subsidiary of a bank and falls under exclusive federal jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that the respondent is federally regulated and dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code alleging reprisal and discrimination in employment on the basis of association, 64 months after her employment was terminated.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss as the application was filed beyond the one-year time limit.

The applicant submitted that she only realized the alleged discrimination when her husband recently experienced discrimination based on creed at the same employer.

The Tribunal found no evidence that the delay was incurred in good faith and dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings asking the Tribunal to amend his application and reconsider an earlier interim decision that deferred his application pending a grievance process.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, noting that under Rule 26.1, reconsideration is only available for final decisions, and the applicant used the incorrect form.

The Tribunal also noted it cannot deal with requests to amend the application while it remains deferred.

The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination and harassment in employment.

The respondent brought a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking further particulars and an extension of time to file a Response.

The Tribunal found that the Application lacked sufficient details to allow the respondent to respond or the Tribunal to determine the nature of the allegations.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide an amended answer detailing the facts supporting her claim and granted the respondent an extension of time to file a Response.

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

The respondent brought a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to compel the applicant to consent to the release of his Medical Advisory Service file before filing its Response, and requested an extension of time.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for medical records as premature at the pleadings stage, noting that disclosure obligations are normally triggered when a hearing is scheduled.

The Tribunal granted the respondent an extension of 20 days to file its Response.

The applicant sought to amend her human rights application by adding three documents, two of which were settlement communications from the respondent's counsel.

The respondent opposed the addition of the settlement documents, claiming privilege.

The Tribunal denied the request to add the settlement communications, affirming that such documents are privileged to encourage frank resolution efforts.

The Tribunal ordered the settlement documents returned and references to them redacted from the file, while allowing the application to be amended to reference a non-privileged insurance letter.

The applicant filed a human rights application against Hewlett Packard and its international CEO, alleging discrimination in services.

The respondents requested the removal of the CEO as a personal respondent, while the applicant requested to amend his application to add further details.

The Tribunal applied the Persaud framework and removed the CEO, finding no compelling reason to include him as he was not alleged to be personally involved in the discriminatory conduct.

The Tribunal also granted the applicant's unopposed request to amend the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability and record of offences against a school board and 16 individuals.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision removing 11 individual respondents, as the applicant failed to identify any compelling reason to name them personally.

The Tribunal also removed the ground of 'record of offences' because the applicant had not received a pardon for his criminal conviction, meaning the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction.

Finally, the Tribunal directed the parties to make submissions on whether the application should be deferred or dismissed under section 45.1 of the Code due to a concurrent grievance arbitration.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of ethnic origin, over two years after his employment was terminated.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period.

The applicant argued he was waiting for his union to pursue a grievance and had also submitted a medical certificate to the employer.

The Tribunal found the applicant provided no information to explain the 20-month delay after submitting the medical certificate, and concluded the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming a denial of accommodation upon returning to work after a back injury.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the application pending an ongoing WSIB proceeding.

Finding substantial overlap between the issues to be determined by the WSIB and the Tribunal, the Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application pending the conclusion of the WSIB proceeding.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by his union, more than 22 months after the last alleged incident.

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

The applicant argued he was unaware of his rights and feared retaliation.

The Tribunal found the delay was not incurred in good faith, noting the applicant had retained counsel during the relevant period and failed to act with due diligence.

The application was dismissed as being outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application but failed to provide correct contact information for three of the four named individual respondents.

The Tribunal attempted to serve the application but was unsuccessful.

After the applicant failed to respond to a Notice of Requirement to Confirm Address for Delivery, the Tribunal dismissed the application against the three unserved individual respondents pursuant to Rule 6.6(b).

The respondent brought a Request for Order During Proceeding to strike portions of the applicant's Reply, arguing they repeated the Application or addressed matters not raised in the Response.

The Tribunal declined to strike paragraphs that merely clarified the applicant's allegations.

However, the Tribunal struck several paragraphs that raised independent causes of action, alleged matters outside the applicant's knowledge, or sought to significantly amend the damages claimed without a proper request.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in contracts on the basis of race and colour more than one year after the last incident.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requesting written submissions on whether the application should be dismissed for delay or because of an ongoing Small Claims Court action.

The applicant failed to provide submissions explaining the delay.

The Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction to proceed as there was no evidence the delay was incurred in good faith, and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of place of origin, ethnic origin, and disability.

The respondents sought early dismissal of the application because the applicant had previously signed a full and final release.

The applicant argued the release was signed under economic duress after he was confronted with video surveillance showing him working while on WSIB benefits.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was not subjected to illegitimate pressure and had freely entered into the agreement.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, disability, family status, and age following her termination.

The respondents sought early dismissal on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release in exchange for additional severance pay.

The applicant argued she signed the release under duress and did not fully understand it.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had the capacity to understand the release, had sought professional advice before signing, and was not subjected to illegitimate pressure amounting to duress.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.