Ruth Carey

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

The respondent requested a summary hearing, while the applicant requested an adjournment and an extension of time for productions due to the unanticipated early birth of her child.

The Tribunal denied the summary hearing request because the respondent disputed the facts rather than the legal sufficiency of the application.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment and extended the deadline for productions, finding that the early birth constituted exceptional circumstances.

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

The respondent raised a timeliness issue, arguing that many incidents occurred more than one year before the application was filed.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations based on ancestry, place of origin, and ethnic origin as out of time, finding no reasonable explanation for the delay.

However, the Tribunal found that the allegations related to disability constituted a series of incidents under s. 34(1)(b) of the Human Rights Code, culminating in the applicant's termination, and were therefore timely.

The respondent requested an order permitting its witness to finish her testimony via teleconference because she lived in the United States and had a busy schedule.

The applicant did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting that the burden is on the party opposing an electronic hearing to show significant prejudice, and that the witness's credibility was not likely to be in issue.

The respondents in a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to amend their Response and for the production of the applicant's passport, travel documents, and telephone records.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend the Response as it was unopposed and caused no prejudice.

The Tribunal denied the requests for document production, finding that the applicant had already admitted to the travel and provided ticket confirmation, and that the respondents failed to establish a nexus between the requested telephone records and any specific fact in dispute.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to the denial of an extension of time to request an internal review of ODSP decisions.

The application was filed more than one year after the last alleged incident of discrimination.

The Tribunal considered whether the delay was incurred in good faith under s. 34(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's intellectual disability and illiteracy did not explain the delay, as she had been capable of instructing her legal clinic to file an appeal to the Social Benefits Tribunal during the same period.

The application was dismissed as out of time.

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

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to file materials pursuant to Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant failed to respond to the direction by the required deadline.

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

The applicant filed human rights applications alleging that the respondent municipality discriminated against him on the basis of disability due to the condition of certain sidewalks.

The respondent requested a summary hearing.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's medical evidence did not establish restrictions preventing him from navigating the sidewalks as described.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to engage in the collaborative accommodation process by notifying the municipality of his disability-related needs.

The Tribunal concluded the applications had no reasonable prospect of success and dismissed them.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability, family status, marital status, age, and association.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations related to age discrimination and the failure to accommodate the applicant's undisclosed learning processing disorder and ADHD.

However, the Tribunal allowed the allegations of harassment and termination based on the applicant's spouse's disability, her own situational depression, and her children's disabilities to proceed to a full hearing, as well as the allegation regarding the denial of a vacation request.

The respondents in a human rights application concerning alleged discrimination at a trailer park filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings (RFOP).

They sought production of the applicant's medical records, an order requiring his physician to testify, and various procedural directions.

The Tribunal granted the request for medical records in part, ordering the applicant to produce records relevant to his acquired brain injury, medication, and alcohol contraindications, applying the 'arguable relevance' threshold.

The Tribunal allowed a minor factual amendment to the responses and struck a requested remedy on consent, but denied the remaining requests as premature or unnecessary.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging the respondent failed to accommodate his disability during the Law School Admission Test (LSAT).

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed multiple procedural requests from both parties.

The Tribunal struck remedies sought against former respondent law schools, denied the respondent's request to bifurcate the hearing, and ordered the applicant to produce background documents relied upon by his proposed expert witness.

The Tribunal also permitted the applicant to amend his application to increase the damages claimed from $100,000 to $600,000, but denied his request to allow a second expert to testify via teleconference without first providing an expert report.

The applicants filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend their human rights applications to include the grounds of family status and marital status, and to add claims for monetary compensation and public interest remedies.

The respondents did not oppose the amendments but requested the opportunity to file an amended Response.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission also filed a Notice of Intervention.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend the applications and permitted the Commission to intervene as a party.

The applicant, an employee on inactive status due to disability, alleged discrimination and reprisal against his employer and union.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the reprisal claim regarding the denial of funding for a residential treatment program, finding no evidence linking the denial to the applicant's previous human rights applications.

The Tribunal also dismissed the age discrimination claim regarding health care contributions, as section 15 of the Code permits preferential treatment for persons aged 65 or older.

Finally, the Tribunal dismissed the claim that denying a signing bonus to an employee not actively working due to disability was discriminatory, as the compensation scheme treated all non-working employees equally.

The applicant, a veterinarian, filed a human rights application alleging that the College of Veterinarians of Ontario discriminated against him on the basis of race, colour, place of origin, ethnic origin, and creed during ongoing disciplinary proceedings.

The applicant alleged selective prosecution and that the College's Discipline Committee wrongfully prevented him from raising discrimination issues.

Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal held that the Discipline Committee's evidentiary and procedural rulings were protected by adjudicative immunity and the doctrine of collateral attack.

Furthermore, the applicant's allegations regarding the Complaints Committee's referral had already been dismissed in a previous application, making re-litigation an abuse of process.

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

Following an interim decision that required the applicant to provide medical documentation to establish his disability, the applicant explicitly refused to comply with the Tribunal's directions.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the lack of medical evidence meant there was no reasonable prospect of success and that permitting the application to continue in the face of the applicant's persistent refusal to comply with directions would constitute an abuse of process.

The applicant, an 84-year-old investor, alleged that the respondents discriminated against him on the basis of age by using age as a factor when recommending against his leveraged investment strategy.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that considering age as one factor among others (such as net worth, income, and risk tolerance) to match investment advice with the lived reality of the investor does not constitute substantive discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

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

The applicant, who has claustrophobia and irritable bowel syndrome, alleged that the respondent travel agency discriminated against her by refusing to provide further services after she disclosed her disabilities and requested an aisle seat near the front of the plane for future travel.

The respondent claimed it denied services because the applicant was combative and demanding, and denied knowledge of her disabilities.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence credible and concluded that her disclosure of her disabilities was a factor in the respondent's decision to deny services, thereby breaching section 1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal also found that the respondent breached its procedural duty to accommodate by failing to inquire into the applicant's needs or consider accommodation options when she subsequently called to ask why she was denied services.

The Tribunal awarded the applicant $5,000 as compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The respondents in a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability requested an interim order for the production of the applicant's medical records and OHIP summary, as well as an extension of time for document production.

The Tribunal ordered the production of medical records related to the claimed disabilities for the relevant period, finding them arguably relevant to the issue of accommodation and remedy.

The Tribunal denied the request for the OHIP summary as unnecessarily duplicative and overly broad.

The request for an extension of time was granted on consent.

The applicant filed a Request for Order during Proceedings to amend her Application to increase the monetary compensation sought from $10,000 to $25,000, and a Request to Expedite Proceedings.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, finding no prejudice to the respondent.

The Tribunal denied the request to expedite, as the applicant failed to provide the required declaration or explain how her financial need or disability constituted urgent circumstances affecting the fair resolution of the matter.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal regarding the disclosure of his personal health information.

At a summary hearing, the applicant's unpaid friend and representative requested an adjournment because the applicant was hospitalized.

The respondent objected to the adjournment and to the representative acting on the applicant's behalf, citing a conflict of interest.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment due to extraordinary circumstances but disqualified the representative from participating further, finding a real possibility of a conflict of interest arising from the representative's involvement in the underlying events.

The applicant filed an Application for Contravention of Settlement alleging the respondent failed to make any of the agreed-upon payments totaling $5,600.

The respondent did not file a response or participate in the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the respondent breached the settlement agreement and ordered him to pay the full amount of $5,600, along with pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.