Sherry Liang

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to re-activate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the completion of proceedings before the Ontario Civilian Police Commission and under the Criminal Code.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the parallel proceedings had not concluded and that its Rules do not permit appeals or reconsiderations of interim deferral decisions.

The applicant's reference to a new incident did not justify re-activation while the other processes remained pending.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice within the required 30-day period.

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 her absence.

After the applicant failed to respond to a subsequent Tribunal letter warning that failure to respond would be deemed an abandonment, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming the respondent failed to accommodate her medical condition.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed on the basis that a full and final release had been signed, relying on Rule 8.2(a) to avoid filing a complete Response.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene and directed the respondent to file a complete Response, finding that significant factual disagreements regarding the settlement required a full record.

A preliminary hearing was ordered to determine whether the application should be dismissed as an abuse of process or under section 45.1 of the Code.

The applicant filed human rights applications against the City of Toronto and Walmer Flats Property Management.

While the City of Toronto filed a response, Walmer failed to do so despite being granted an extension of time.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning Walmer of the consequences of failing to respond under Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

Walmer was granted a final 10 days to file a response and explain the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice and deem the allegations accepted.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code against the corporate and personal respondents.

One personal respondent failed to file a Response by the deadline.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the corporate respondent to forward the decision to the non-responding party and granting that party 10 days to file a Response with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice.

The applicant filed an application alleging a breach of a settlement reached in an earlier human rights application.

The Tribunal noted that one of the personal respondents was not a party to the settlement and directed the applicant to provide submissions on whether he intended to continue the application against that respondent.

The Tribunal also noted that the other respondents had failed to file a Response and directed them to do so within seven days, warning that failure to respond could result in the Tribunal proceeding without their participation.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination based on reprisal or threats of reprisal in the workplace.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide written submissions explaining how the respondent's behaviour related to claiming or enforcing a right under the Human Rights Code.

Finding that the applicant's submissions described general workplace disputes without alleging any Code-protected grounds or reprisal for enforcing Code rights, the Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant, a student identified with a developmental disability, alleged discrimination regarding his special education placement.

The respondent school board requested the application be dismissed, arguing the Special Education Tribunal (SET) had exclusive jurisdiction.

As the applicant's parents had appealed the placement to the SET, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario deferred the application pending the completion of the SET process, noting the SET would deal with the same issues.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The respondents failed to file a Response within the required 35 days.

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

The Tribunal warned that failure to do so may result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming the respondents to have accepted the allegations.

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

The Tribunal sent multiple notices advising that the application was incomplete and appeared to be outside its jurisdiction, directing the applicant to provide missing information and submissions.

The applicant failed to respond to the notices.

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

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code against a corporate respondent and two personal respondents.

While the corporate respondent and one personal respondent filed a Response, the second personal respondent failed to do so.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the non-responding party to file a Response within 10 days, warning that failure to comply could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming the allegations accepted pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant filed a human rights application.

The respondent failed to file a response by the deadline.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent that failure to participate may lead to orders against them without their participation, pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondent was given a final deadline to file a response and explain the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice.

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 of the consequences of failing to participate under Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The Tribunal granted the respondent an extension to November 10, 2010, to file a Response along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the corporate respondent and three individuals.

One individual respondent, Craig Read, failed to file a response after being served.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing Read to file a response by November 10, 2010, warning that failure to do so could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice to him and deeming him to have accepted the allegations.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that her union, the Ontario Nurses' Association, discriminated against her on the basis of disability by failing to accommodate her and instead negotiating a severance agreement with her employer.

The union requested that the application be dismissed as an abuse of process, arguing that the settlement agreement fully resolved the applicant's employment issues.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had agreed to the severance of her employment in exchange for monetary compensation, thereby settling her accommodation claims.

The Tribunal concluded that permitting the application to proceed would be an abuse of process and dismissed the application.

The applicant, a retired teacher and member of the respondent pension plan, alleged discrimination on the basis of race, colour, ethnic origin, and age after the respondent's staff called security to escort him from their offices.

The incident occurred when the applicant, upset over a pension deduction related to a prior overpayment repayment agreement, refused to leave the premises or discuss the matter with the Director of Client Services.

The Tribunal found that the decision to call security was a response to the applicant's agitated behaviour and refusal to leave, and that there was no evidence to support an inference of racial discrimination or stereotyping.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the grounds of disability and age after being denied Wheel Trans service.

She requested an interim remedy directing the respondent to provide the service pending the outcome of the application, as well as a request to expedite.

The Tribunal dismissed both requests, finding that the applicant failed to meet the significant onus of demonstrating that the balance of harm or convenience favoured granting the interim remedy, as her doctor's letter did not adequately support her factual assertions regarding the harm of being denied the service.

The applicant, a law professor, alleged discrimination on the basis of race and sex after a search committee decided not to recommend her for the position of Dean following plagiarism allegations.

The respondent University brought a request for an order permitting it to use and disclose confidential search committee documents to prepare its Response, and to redact certain information.

The Tribunal granted the request to use and disclose the documents, finding it necessary for the University to file a full Response and beneficial for mediation.

However, the Tribunal found the request to redact and anonymize documents premature, as formal disclosure obligations would not arise unless mediation failed.

The applicant alleged that her employer failed to properly respond to her complaints of sexual harassment by a co-worker, that her union discriminated against her in its representation, and that her subsequent termination was a reprisal for enforcing her human rights.

At the conclusion of the applicant's evidence, the respondents brought a non-suit motion.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case.

The evidence showed the employer took reasonable steps to investigate and address the harassment complaints, the union provided appropriate representation, and the termination was due to the applicant's failure to provide medical documentation for an unauthorized leave of absence, not reprisal.