Naomi Overend

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment against the Royal Bank of Canada and an individual respondent.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that the respondent appeared to be a federally regulated business.

After receiving written submissions from the applicant, the Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that banking falls under federal jurisdiction pursuant to s. 91(15) of the Constitution Act, 1867, and therefore the provincial Human Rights Code does not apply.

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

The applicant's union subsequently filed a grievance covering most aspects of the application and requested intervenor status, which the Tribunal granted.

The union and the respondents requested that the application be deferred pending the outcome of the grievance.

Given the substantial overlap in facts and issues, and the applicant's failure to object, the Tribunal deferred the application.

The Tribunal also removed two individually named respondents on consent, but deferred consideration of a request to remove the remaining individual respondents.

The applicant, a pilot, filed an application alleging age discrimination in employment against the respondent airline and two individuals.

The Tribunal sought submissions on whether it had jurisdiction, as the respondent appeared to be a federally regulated business.

The applicant failed to provide submissions on jurisdiction.

The Tribunal determined that the organizational respondent is an airline and therefore a federal work, undertaking, or business under the Canada Labour Code.

Consequently, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction over the matter and dismissed the application.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer the applicant's human rights application alleging disability discrimination pending the outcome of her claim under the Employment Standards Act (ESA).

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the ESA process would only address whether the applicant's three-day absence was improperly considered in her termination, not the broader allegations of failure to accommodate and disability discrimination.

The Tribunal concluded that deferral was not appropriate given the limited factual overlap and the potential for significant delay if the ESA decision were appealed.

The applicant filed an application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code alleging discrimination on the basis of age, disability, and reprisal.

The applicant had also filed a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission based on the same facts.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to be barred by s. 53(8) of the Code, which prohibits a new application if the subject-matter is the same as a complaint filed with the Commission.

The applicant failed to provide written submissions in response to the Notice.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as barred by s. 53(8).

The applicant filed an application alleging reprisal in employment.

The applicant's union requested intervenor status, arguing the matter should be deferred pending an ongoing arbitration and that the alleged reprisal did not involve enforcing rights under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene.

The Tribunal also noted that the applicant did not appear to allege a violation of the Code and requested written submissions from the parties on whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the application.

The respondent requested early dismissal of a human rights application alleging employment discrimination on the basis of sex and colour, arguing that the substance of the application was appropriately dealt with in a grievance settlement.

The Tribunal noted that section 43(2) of the Human Rights Code requires an opportunity for oral submissions before finally disposing of an application.

Accordingly, the Tribunal scheduled a one-day hearing to consider the early dismissal request and provided directions for the hearing and potential intervenors.

The respondents requested an early dismissal of the human rights application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that an Employment Standards Officer's decision had appropriately dealt with the substance of the applicant's claim of pregnancy discrimination.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant did not appeal the ESA decision.

Pursuant to s. 43(2) of the Code, the Tribunal scheduled a half-day hearing to allow the parties to make oral submissions on whether the application should be dismissed.

The applicant filed two human rights applications against the respondents, the first alleging discrimination on the basis of marital status and the second alleging reprisal.

The respondents requested that the two applications be consolidated and heard together on the dates already scheduled for the first application.

The applicant agreed to consolidation but requested an adjournment to allow more time for disclosure and production.

The Tribunal ordered the applications consolidated and maintained the scheduled hearing dates, finding that the facts were interrelated, the second matter was not factually complicated, and the applicant would not be unfairly disadvantaged by the abridged timelines.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by her treating psychiatrist and the hospital.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed as it was filed more than one year after the last alleged discriminatory incident.

The Tribunal found that the closure of the applicant's file was not a discriminatory incident and could not be used to extend the time limit.

The Tribunal also found that the delay in filing was not incurred in good faith, as the applicant had pursued other complaints during the delay period.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and receipt of public assistance regarding a minimum income criteria and co-signor requirement for rental accommodation.

The applicant brought a Request for Order to add Spallacci Contracting Limited as a respondent, as the original respondent indicated the developer shared responsibility for the policy.

The Tribunal granted the request and added Spallacci Contracting Limited as a respondent.

The applicant, a paramedic, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability after being terminated for failing to recertify.

The respondents requested early dismissal under s. 45.1 of the Code, arguing the matter was appropriately dealt with in a prior grievance arbitration.

The applicant sought to amend his application to include allegations regarding a learning disability.

The Tribunal granted CUPE's request to intervene and directed that the requests for early dismissal and amendment be heard at an oral hearing, as required by s. 43(2) of the Code.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, disability, family status, and age.

The corporate respondent sought early dismissal of the application, arguing that the applicant had signed a full and final release upon termination of her employment.

The applicant contended that she signed the release under duress and did not understand it.

The Tribunal directed that a preliminary hearing be scheduled to determine whether the application should be dismissed on the basis of the release, as section 43(2) of the Code requires an opportunity for oral submissions before final disposition.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to amend her human rights application alleging disability discrimination.

She sought to add an allegation of differential treatment upon returning from sick leave and to include a claim for ongoing wage loss.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting the amendments were reasonable, the hearing was months away, and the respondent had not opposed the request.

The applicant requested to amend his human rights application to increase the financial remedy sought from $50,000 to $550,000 after his civil action was dismissed.

The respondent doctor requested an order permitting the disclosure of the applicant's personal health information to file a response, citing the Personal Health Information Protection Act.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to amend and directed that the respondents may use or disclose the applicant's personal health information for the purpose of the proceeding.

The applicant, a probationary police constable, requested the production of personnel and Labour Relations files of other probationary constables to compare performance concerns raised against him.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the minimal probative value of the comparative evidence was outweighed by the prejudice to the respondents in compiling the files and the privacy interests of the third-party police officers.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, 25 months after his employment was terminated and 20 months after his union decided not to pursue his grievance.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed for delay.

The Tribunal found that the application was filed outside the one-year time limit under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant failed to demonstrate that the delay was incurred in good faith, as he chose to pursue an internal union review rather than filing a timely application, and further delayed filing after the union review concluded.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, family status, and reprisal against her employer, union, and the WSIB.

The employer and union respondents requested that the application be deferred pending the determination of outstanding grievances.

The Tribunal noted that the application did not clearly allege Code violations against the WSIB and its adjudicator.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the applicant to provide written submissions on whether she wished to continue against the WSIB respondents and on the request for deferral.

The applicant was hired as a full-time receptionist at the respondents' salons.

On her first day of work, she disclosed that she was four and a half months pregnant.

Shortly after, her employment was terminated.

The respondents claimed she was fired because she requested part-time hours, which they could not accommodate.

The Tribunal found the respondents' explanation lacked credibility and concluded that the applicant's pregnancy was a factor in her termination.

The Tribunal awarded damages for lost wages, lost maternity benefits, and injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and ordered the respondents to implement a written policy on accommodating pregnant employees.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the ground of disability, claiming constructive dismissal after a workplace injury.

The respondent argued the applicant abandoned his employment.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the parties to make submissions on whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction, given the lack of alleged link between the disability and termination, and whether the application was filed within the one-year time limit under section 34 of the Code.