Sherry Liang

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing on the grounds of sexual orientation and receipt of public assistance.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to be filed outside the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

Despite being given opportunities to provide further information and medical evidence explaining the delay, the applicant failed to establish that the application was timely or that the delay was incurred in good faith.

The application was dismissed as untimely.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment, including discriminatory discharge and reprisal.

The applicant's union also filed grievances regarding unjust discipline and discharge, which were scheduled for arbitration.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the application pending the conclusion of the grievance arbitration.

Finding substantial overlap between the facts and issues in both proceedings, the Tribunal deferred the application to avoid the risk of inconsistent decisions.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the application because it appeared to be outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction, and directed the applicant to provide written submissions.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice.

As a result, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

The respondent failed to file a Response by the required deadline.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent that failure to file a Response within 10 days could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming the respondent to have accepted the allegations.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the ground of disability after the respondent refused her offer to donate blood in 2002.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application was filed eight years after the incident.

The applicant argued the delay was due to mental exhaustion from other litigation and that the refusal constituted a continuing series of incidents.

The Tribunal found that the 2002 decision was a single incident and its continuing effects did not constitute a series of incidents.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the eight-year delay and dismissed the application as untimely.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in a hiring process for an airport screening officer position with the respondent.

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

The applicant argued that the respondent was not on a list of federal employers he obtained.

The Tribunal found that pre-boarding screening of passengers and baggage is functionally integrated into air transportation, which falls under federal jurisdiction.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant requested to re-activate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the outcome of related union grievances.

The union and the employer had settled the grievances and the union withdrew them, but the applicant refused to sign the settlement agreement that would have disposed of her human rights application.

The Tribunal held that, absent the applicant's consent to the settlement, the withdrawal of the grievances by the union did not preclude her from proceeding with her application.

The request to re-activate the application was granted.

The Tribunal held a case management conference call to address the lead case designation in a group of applications challenging minor hockey residency rules.

The family of the previously designated lead applicant, CH.K., requested to withdraw from that role due to family medical matters.

Over the respondents' objections regarding prejudice, the Tribunal allowed the change and designated CO.K. as the new lead case, finding minimal prejudice since no hearing dates had been set and no documents exchanged.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination after not being awarded a Fire Chief position.

He subsequently brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend his application to claim additional remedies, including monetary compensation and placement in the position.

The respondent opposed the amendment, arguing it was untimely and prejudicial.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the amendments related only to the remedy and not the nature of the allegations, and therefore were not untimely under section 34(1) of the Code.

The Tribunal also directed that the incumbent be given notice as an affected party.

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 later requested an update on the status of the grievance proceedings, warning that failure to respond could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

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

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

The human rights applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the grounds of race and disability following his termination.

The respondent employer requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the completion of a concurrent grievance arbitration process challenging the termination.

The Tribunal found that there was substantial overlap between the facts and issues in both proceedings and that the arbitration process was already underway.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the arbitration.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision revoking a previous decision that had denied the applicant's request to reschedule a summary hearing.

The adjudicator noted that she had been unaware of an earlier, timely request to reschedule made by the respondents.

The Tribunal also directed that the applicant's request to add two additional respondents would be dealt with as a preliminary matter at the rescheduled summary hearing.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer a human rights application alleging disability discrimination in employment termination, pending the applicant's appeal to an Umpire regarding Employment Insurance benefits.

Finding significant overlap in the facts and issues, particularly regarding the respondent's allegations of workplace misconduct, the Tribunal deferred the application to avoid duplication of proceedings and the risk of inconsistent findings.

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

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed, arguing the applicant had signed a full and final release.

The Tribunal issued a Notice directing the applicant to provide submissions on the request to dismiss and warned that failure to respond could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond by the deadline.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

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

The Tribunal directed the applicant to file submissions on jurisdictional issues.

After receiving an extension, the applicant failed to file the submissions and informed the Tribunal that he intended to seek legal remedies in another forum.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a summary hearing scheduled for February 17, 2011, citing unavailability and a recent medical emergency.

The Tribunal denied the request because it was made more than 14 days after the Notice of Summary Hearing and the applicant failed to establish exceptional circumstances as required by the Practice Direction.

The request was denied with leave to renew with proper supporting information.

The applicants filed human rights applications alleging discrimination and reprisal.

The respondents requested dismissal on the basis of res judicata, delay, and absolute privilege.

The applicants brought a request to add a new individual as a respondent, alleging conspiracy.

The Tribunal applied the Smyth test and denied the request to add the party, finding no allegations that could support a Code violation against the proposed respondent.

The Tribunal directed a hearing to address the respondents' requests to dismiss.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application due to delay.

She argued that the respondent acted in bad faith and delayed providing a consultant's report, which caused her delay in filing.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that the applicant merely repeated arguments already considered and failed to establish any new facts, conflict with established jurisprudence, or other factors outweighing the public interest in the finality of decisions.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the ground of disability, specifically that his employer refused to allow him to return to work.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant's union had filed a concurrent grievance based on the same facts.

The applicant opposed deferral, noting the grievance process had stalled and expressing dissatisfaction with his union representation.

The respondent supported deferral.

The Tribunal declined to defer the application, finding that although there was substantial overlap between the proceedings, there was no indication that the union or the respondent intended to refer the grievance to arbitration.

The application was ordered to proceed.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

The respondent failed to file a Response by the deadline set in the Notice of Application.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent of the consequences of failing to participate and granting a 10-day extension to file a Response with an explanation for the delay.