Sherry Liang

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

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

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent that failure to participate may lead to orders against it without further notice, and granted the respondent 10 days to file a Response with an explanation for the delay.

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

The Tribunal made multiple attempts to contact the applicant, but correspondence was returned as "moved/unknown".

The Tribunal issued an Interim Decision directing the applicant to provide current contact information and advise of his intentions, warning that failure to do so would result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond or provide updated contact information.

Consequently, 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 directing the respondent to file a Response within 10 days, along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice and deem the respondent to have accepted the allegations.

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 directing the respondent to file a response within 10 days, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice and deem the respondent to have accepted the allegations.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

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

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondent to file a Response within 10 days, along with an explanation for the delay.

The Tribunal warned that if no Response is received, it may proceed without further notice to the respondent and deem the respondent to have accepted the allegations.

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

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

The Tribunal issued an Interim Decision warning the respondents that failure to participate could lead to orders against them without their participation, pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondents were given 10 days to file a Response and explain the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice.

The applicant, a teacher, alleged age discrimination, harassment, and reprisal by the school board and individual administrators after she was denied a promotion to Vice-Principal.

Following the presentation of the applicant's evidence, the Tribunal assessed whether a prima facie case had been established.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations of age-based harassment, reprisal, and general failure to promote, finding insufficient evidence to link the alleged conduct to the applicant's age or to retaliatory intent.

However, the Tribunal found that the applicant established a prima facie case of age discrimination regarding the specific denial of a promotion to Vice-Principal at her own school, requiring the respondents to present evidence on that issue.

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

A conference call hearing was scheduled to address the timeliness of the application.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing despite receiving proper notice.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had abandoned the application and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application over two years after the underlying events.

The respondents requested early dismissal on the basis of delay and section 53(8) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that section 53(8) did not bar the application because a prior complaint had never been formally 'filed' with the Commission.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the application because it was filed beyond the one-year limitation period and the applicant failed to establish that the delay was incurred in good faith, noting a lack of due diligence in pursuing the claim despite communications from the Commission.

The applicant filed an application alleging contravention of a settlement but failed to provide current contact information for the respondents.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide the required information and warned that failure to do so could result in dismissal.

The applicant did not respond to the Tribunal's directions.

Consequently, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, naming only her former manager as a respondent.

The Tribunal proposed adding the employer clinic, Mount Dennis Medical Group (MDMG), as a respondent.

MDMG objected, arguing the manager acted outside her authority in terminating the applicant.

Applying the three-part test from Smyth, the Tribunal found it arguable that MDMG could be vicariously liable under section 46.3 of the Code for the manager's actions.

The Tribunal ordered MDMG added as a respondent.

The respondent requested that the human rights application alleging disability discrimination and reprisal be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance was dealt with by a Board of Referees decision denying the applicant Employment Insurance benefits.

The Tribunal denied the request as premature because the applicant had appealed the Board of Referees decision to the Umpire.

The Tribunal directed the parties to provide submissions on whether the application should be deferred pending the conclusion of the EI appeal process.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled summary hearing due to ill health, family situation, and personal strain, supported by doctors' letters.

The respondents opposed the request, seeking a timely determination.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, noting the applicant made the request in a timely manner and the respondents showed no specific prejudice.

The parties were directed to provide alternative dates before June 17, 2011.

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

The respondent requested to dismiss the application on the basis of exclusive federal jurisdiction.

The applicant requested a deferral pending the conclusion of an investigation before the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC).

The Tribunal granted the deferral, finding it appropriate to await the CHRC's determination on jurisdiction before proceeding.

In an ongoing human rights application, the respondents requested the removal of the personal respondent, while the applicant requested further production of documents.

The Tribunal deferred the request to remove the personal respondent until the completion of the hearing, noting his involvement as the corporate contact and anticipated witness.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request for further production in part, ordering the corporate respondent to produce specific client contracts and employee records relevant to its defense of bona fide layoff due to downsizing.

The applicant filed an Application for Contravention of Settlement.

The Tribunal requested confirmation of whether the applicant received a settlement cheque and wished to proceed.

The applicant confirmed receipt of the cheque but did not state a desire to proceed.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging differential treatment and discriminatory re-training requirements following workplace discipline.

The applicant's union had previously filed a grievance based on the same facts.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer.

The respondents and the union agreed to the deferral, while the applicant opposed it due to delays in the grievance process.

The Tribunal deferred the application, noting the substantial overlap in facts and issues, and the Supreme Court's confirmation that grievance arbitrators have the responsibility to enforce human rights obligations.

The individual respondents in a human rights application requested an extension of time to file their Response pending Youth Court proceedings to obtain access to records relating to the applicant under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting the support of the respondent Police Services Board and the lack of submissions from other parties.

The deadline for filing the Response was extended to 30 days following receipt of the records.

The applicant, a foreign-trained physician, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario and the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care regarding the recognition of his specialist credentials.

The respondents sought to dismiss the application on preliminary grounds, arguing that the pre-2007 allegations were out of time and that the post-2007 allegations were barred by section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code due to a purported settlement of a defamation claim.

The Tribunal held that the pre-2007 allegations were untimely and did not form a 'series of incidents' with the post-2007 events.

However, the Tribunal found that section 34(11) did not bar the post-2007 allegations, as no civil proceeding had been commenced and the purported settlement did not clearly resolve the human rights claims.

The timely portions of the application were permitted to proceed.

The applicant, a former volunteer firefighter, filed a human rights application alleging gender discrimination and harassment between 2002 and 2006.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed as it was filed beyond the one-year limitation period set out in section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the last incident of alleged discrimination occurred well before the application was filed in March 2010.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, and therefore the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The application was dismissed.