Naomi Overend

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application.

He argued that he needed an interpreter and had new evidence.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the applicant had failed to request an interpreter despite being directed to do so, had participated fully in English at the summary hearing, and did not show that the new evidence was previously unavailable.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

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

The applicant subsequently informed the Tribunal that he was required to withdraw his application as part of a settlement agreement.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to file a Form 9 Request to Withdraw and warned that failure to do so could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond or file the required form.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, which was deferred pending the conclusion of ongoing grievance proceedings.

The Tribunal subsequently wrote to the applicant twice requesting an update on the other proceedings, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant did not respond to either letter, and the respondent union advised that the arbitrator had issued a decision a year prior without the applicant seeking to reactivate the application.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant alleged that the respondent failed to accommodate his back injury.

The respondent requested an order to defer the application pending a grievance, dismiss portions for delay, and authorize access to the applicant's Occupational Health and Claims Management (OHCM) file.

The Tribunal denied the deferral request as the grievance was inactive and limited in scope.

The Tribunal granted the respondent access to the OHCM file, finding the medical records arguably relevant to defending the accommodation allegations, and extended the deadline for the respondent to file its Response.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for August 27, 2015, because its previous representative unexpectedly terminated the retainer one week before the hearing.

The applicant did not oppose the adjournment but requested it be peremptory.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding no basis to make it peremptory, and directed the Registrar to reschedule the hearing.

The respondents requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing on consent, citing ongoing settlement discussions, the likelihood that the hearing would exceed the scheduled one day, and witness unavailability.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario denied the request, noting its Practice Direction requires extraordinary circumstances for late adjournments.

The Tribunal held that settlement discussions and scheduling preferences do not constitute sufficient reasons to vacate a hearing date and waste allocated public resources.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability and race.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed for delay and for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the allegations relating to incidents from December 2012 to February 2013 due to delay, as they were filed outside the one-year limitation period without a reasonable explanation.

However, the Tribunal declined to dismiss the May 2014 allegation, finding a sufficient nexus between the alleged workplace harassment and the applicant's disability to warrant a full hearing.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing on the basis that its relationship with its lawyer had ended and it was in the process of retaining new counsel.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the request was made outside the 14-day period and that retaining a new representative who is not available or prepared to proceed is not considered an exceptional circumstance justifying an adjournment.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing on the basis that she no longer had a lawyer and was inadequately represented previously.

The respondent objected and requested the Application be dismissed due to the applicant's failure to engage in the process.

The Tribunal denied both requests, noting that retaining a new representative or losing counsel at the last minute does not constitute an exceptional circumstance justifying an adjournment under the Tribunal's Practice Direction.

The applicant, a municipal councillor and board member of the respondent corporation, alleged that her right to be free from reprisal was violated when her attendance record was leaked to the press after she filed a human rights application.

The Tribunal found that while the leak was likely intended to embarrass the applicant, there was insufficient evidence to prove that the motivation was to retaliate for her human rights application, given her pre-existing fractious relationship with other board members.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in service by the respondent retail store.

Prior to filing the application, the applicant had commenced a civil action seeking damages for discrimination and false imprisonment, specifically claiming damages under section 46.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide submissions on whether the application was barred by section 34(11) of the Code.

The applicant acknowledged the concurrent proceedings and stated his intention to pursue the civil claim.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it was barred by section 34(11) because the civil proceeding had not been finally determined or withdrawn.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal after the respondent employer refused to allow him to return to work following a WSIB injury.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that a WSIB Re-Employment Case Manager had already dealt with the substance of the application by finding the respondent breached its re-employment obligations.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss, finding that although there was factual overlap, it would be unfair to the applicant to deprive him of the broader remedial authority available under the Code, as the WSIB's remedies were limited to a maximum of one year of partial lost wages.

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

Subsequently, the applicant filed a Statement of Claim in court for wrongful dismissal and Code violations, specifically seeking damages under s. 46.1 of the Code.

The Tribunal directed the parties to file submissions on whether the application was barred by s. 34(11) of the Code.

The applicant did not file submissions.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it was barred by s. 34(11) because a civil proceeding seeking an order under s. 46.1 had been commenced.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to services because of disability.

The respondent failed to file a complete Response despite multiple notices, extensions, and warnings from the Tribunal.

Applying the approach in Kearns, the Tribunal deemed the respondent to have accepted all allegations in the application and waived all rights to notice or participation in the proceedings.

A case management conference call was scheduled to determine next steps for the applicant.

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

After the applicant's counsel withdrew from the record, the Tribunal issued multiple directions requiring the applicant to advise whether he intended to proceed with the application.

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's communications, including a Case Assessment Direction warning that the application would be dismissed if no response was received.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

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

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation session and did not communicate with the Tribunal to explain the absence.

The Tribunal subsequently directed the applicant to advise of their intentions regarding the application, warning that failure to respond could result in deemed abandonment.

The applicant did not respond.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

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

A mediation was scheduled, but the applicant failed to attend and did not communicate with the Tribunal.

The Tribunal subsequently directed the applicant to advise of her intentions, warning that failure to respond could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant did not respond.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicants filed applications alleging that the respondents breached a settlement agreement by attempting to introduce a property search in a Small Claims Court proceeding.

The applicants argued that the search was conducted using information obtained during the mediation process, violating a confidentiality agreement signed prior to mediation.

The Tribunal dismissed the applications, finding that the confidentiality provision in the settlement agreement only prohibited disclosure of the terms of the settlement itself.

The Tribunal noted that a contravention application under section 45.9(3) of the Human Rights Code must be based on a breach of the settlement agreement, not a breach of a pre-mediation confidentiality agreement.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on multiple grounds, including race, disability, and age.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal found that the allegation regarding a 2009 layoff was out of time and that the applicant had no reasonable prospect of success in establishing a link between the respondent's alleged conduct and any of the grounds cited in the application.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed human rights applications alleging discrimination by the police.

The respondents requested the applications be dismissed as abandoned or for abuse of process due to the applicant's repeated failure to cooperate with scheduling a hearing and his insistence on procedural demands.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the applications as abandoned because the applicant was still participating, but ordered submissions on whether proceeding would be an abuse of process.

The Tribunal also denied the applicant's request for reconsideration of interim rulings, noting that reconsideration is only available for final decisions.