Naomi Overend

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability by adjudicators of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (CICB) during a compensation hearing.

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings asking that the application be dismissed on the basis of quasi-judicial immunity.

The Tribunal found that the CICB and its adjudicators were exercising a quasi-judicial function when conducting the hearing and making their decision.

As such, they are protected by the doctrine of quasi-judicial immunity, which prohibits legal proceedings against them for executing their decision-making duties.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing and services by a women's shelter.

The respondent argued the application was filed more than one year after the applicant's discharge from the shelter.

The Tribunal found the last alleged discriminatory event occurred outside the one-year limitation period.

As the applicant failed to provide submissions demonstrating the delay was incurred in good faith, the Tribunal concluded it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the application.

The applicants filed an application alleging discrimination in housing on the basis of disability and reprisal.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the application initially failed to link the alleged improper conduct to a prohibited ground.

After reviewing the applicants' written submissions, which alleged that their treatment changed and led to their eviction following the disclosure of a disability, the Tribunal concluded it was not plain and obvious that the application fell outside its jurisdiction.

The Tribunal directed that the application be served on the respondent.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in housing and employment on the basis of receipt of social assistance and reprisal.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the allegations, which involved a personal dispute and bullying by another co-op member, did not relate to any ground under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, finding no nexus between the alleged unfairness and a Code ground, and no basis for a reprisal claim.

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

The respondent sought early dismissal on the basis that the allegations had been the subject of previous OHRC complaints and union grievances.

The Tribunal dismissed the portions of the application that overlapped with the prior OHRC complaint under s. 53(8) of the Code, and the portions that had been resolved through grievance settlements under s. 45.1.

The Tribunal permitted the applicant to amend the application to include a new allegation of reprisal.

The applicant filed an application alleging age discrimination in employment.

Various requests for orders were filed by the parties, including requests to amend the application, for production, to remove individual respondents, and to dismiss portions of the application.

The Tribunal granted intervenor status to the applicant's bargaining agent on consent.

The Tribunal scheduled an in-person case management hearing to address the remaining outstanding requests.

The applicant, a paramedic, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability after his employment was terminated by two separate employers for failing to reactivate his certification.

Prior to the application, the applicant's union grieved one of the terminations, and an arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding no prima facie case of discrimination linking his alleged disability to his failure to recertify.

The respondents requested an early dismissal of the human rights application under s. 45.1 of the Code.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the arbitrator's decision appropriately dealt with the substance of the application against both employers, and dismissed the application.

The applicant, a technical support worker, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability after he was pressured during a sick leave and subsequently terminated.

The respondents claimed the termination was due to the applicant's lack of credibility and alleged fraudulent conduct.

The Tribunal found the respondents' explanations to be unsupported and pretextual.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's disability was a factor in the termination and other differential treatment, including requiring him to pay benefits premiums while on leave and demanding references post-probation.

The corporate respondent was ordered to pay $38,400 for lost wages and $15,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The applicant brought a request to add an individual as a respondent to her human rights application.

The Tribunal denied the request because the proposed respondent had not been served with the request, making it unfair to add her, and the application contained no allegations that could support a finding that she violated the Code.

The Tribunal also ordered that a minor respondent and his mother be identified by their initials pursuant to Rule 3.11.1, and directed the parties to provide submissions on whether the minor should remain a respondent to the proceedings.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the application failed to identify specific acts of discrimination.

In response, the applicant provided submissions alleging differential treatment and termination due to his disability.

The Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the application was outside its jurisdiction and directed that the application be processed and served on the respondents.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging her employment was terminated because she was pregnant.

She concurrently filed a claim under the Employment Standards Act (ESA) alleging reprisal for intending to take pregnancy leave.

An Employment Standards Officer dismissed the ESA claim, finding the termination was based on economic factors and lack of experience, not pregnancy.

The respondents requested early dismissal of the human rights application under s. 45.1 of the Code.

The Tribunal found that the ESA proceeding appropriately dealt with the substance of the application and applied human rights principles.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application while a concurrent union grievance proceeding based on the same facts was ongoing.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer.

The respondent supported deferral, and the applicant did not respond.

Noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority to enforce human rights obligations, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process.

The respondents brought a Request for Order During Proceedings to remove the individual respondent, the President of the organizational respondent, as a party to the human rights application.

Applying the Persaud framework, the Tribunal found no compelling reason to continue the proceeding against the individual respondent, as there was no issue regarding the organizational respondent's deemed liability or ability to remedy the alleged infringement.

The request was granted and the individual respondent was removed as a party.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the application appeared to be filed more than one year after the last alleged incident.

In response, the applicant clarified that a subsequent incident occurred within the one-year period when he received a letter stating there was no suitable modified work for him.

The Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the application was out of time and directed that the application continue.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondents.

Former counsel for the respondents provided the Tribunal with an Initial Order of the Superior Court of Justice staying proceedings against the corporate respondent pursuant to the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act.

The Tribunal directed the parties to provide submissions on the impact of the Initial Order and whether they are prepared to participate in the scheduled mediation.

The applicant filed an application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code but failed to attend a scheduled mediation or otherwise contact the Tribunal.

After the applicant failed to respond to a notice of intent to dismiss, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the Ontario Association of Architects, alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sexual orientation and age.

He claimed the Association was responsible because its individual members failed to hire him.

The respondent requested a summary dismissal.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing under Rule 19A and found that the Association, as a professional regulatory body, is not responsible for securing employment for its members or for the hiring decisions of individual architectural firms.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application while a concurrent union grievance proceeding based on the same facts was ongoing.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer.

The respondent supported deferral, the applicant did not oppose it, and the union indicated the grievance settlement would likely resolve the matter.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process, noting the substantial overlap of issues and the authority of grievance arbitrators to enforce human rights obligations.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred pending the completion of a concurrent grievance filed by the applicant's union, which dealt with substantially identical facts and issues.

The applicant opposed deferral, citing a lack of faith in the union and concerns about the arbitration process.

The Tribunal granted the deferral, noting its general practice to defer when concurrent legal proceedings can address the same human rights issues, as grievance arbitrators have the authority to enforce human rights statutes.

The application was deferred pending the completion of the grievance process.

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

The Tribunal requested updated contact information for the individual respondent and direction on whether the applicant wished to proceed, given the corporate respondent's apparent bankruptcy.

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's correspondence.

Consequently, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.