Sherry Liang

The applicant, a law professor, sought an interim remedy to suspend the university's search for a new Dean pending the resolution of her human rights application alleging race and sex discrimination in the previous search process.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the balance of harm favoured the university, which would suffer significant detriment without a permanent Dean.

The Tribunal also noted that the appointment of a new Dean would not necessarily preclude the applicant from being instated to the position if her application ultimately succeeded.

The respondents in a human rights application filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking particulars, production of documents, and witness information.

The applicant provided further particulars and witness information in her response.

The respondents also sought extensive medical records, which the applicant opposed as premature.

The Tribunal declined to order production of the disputed medical records prior to the standard documentary disclosure deadlines, but directed the applicant to provide written consents for the records she had agreed to release.

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

The Tribunal was unable to deliver the application to the respondent at the provided address.

The Tribunal requested further contact information from the applicant and warned that failure to provide it could result in dismissal.

The applicant did not respond.

The application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

The respondents filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings, asking the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario to decline to accept the applicant's Reply because it was filed four days late.

The Tribunal found no good reason to grant the request, even assuming the Reply was filed beyond the deadline.

The request was denied and the Reply was accepted.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her application for failing to provide written submissions.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had in fact submitted her response before the deadline, but it was not before the adjudicator due to an administrative oversight.

The Tribunal revoked the dismissal decision and directed a one-day in-person hearing to address the respondents' requests for early dismissal.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on race, colour, and age after the respondent removed vegetation from his property.

The Tribunal previously dismissed the application as abandoned when the applicant failed to respond to a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration beyond the 30-day time limit, claiming he was overseas.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no good reason to waive the time limit as the applicant failed to act with diligence.

Furthermore, the Tribunal noted the application was barred under section 53(8) of the Human Rights Code because the applicant had previously filed a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission regarding the same subject matter.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in services after being detained and accused of shoplifting at a Zellers store.

The applicant also commenced a civil action for false imprisonment based on the same events.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the conclusion of the civil action, to which the applicant consented.

The Tribunal granted the request and deferred the application to avoid concurrent proceedings and the risk of inconsistent factual findings.

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

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed or deferred because the issues were appropriately dealt with under the Employment Standards Act.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to respond to the respondents' request and warned that failure to do so could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant failed to file written submissions.

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

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

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed, arguing that another proceeding had already dealt with the substance of the matter.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide written submissions in response to the request, warning that failure to do so could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

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

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

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

Prior to the application, the applicant's union filed a grievance regarding his termination, which was dismissed by an arbitrator.

The union subsequently commenced an application for judicial review of the arbitration award.

The respondents requested that the human rights application be dismissed as an abuse of process or deferred pending the judicial review.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the judicial review proceedings, noting that the outcome of the court process could affect the consideration of the request to dismiss.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting the application appeared to be out of time and the subject of a civil proceeding, and directed the applicant to provide submissions.

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

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by his neighbours, one of whom is a police officer.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred pending the outcome of a related police complaint review by the Ontario Civilian Police Commission and a criminal Peace Bond application involving the same parties and overlapping facts.

The Tribunal granted the request and deferred the application to avoid concurrent proceedings and the risk of inconsistent decisions.

In an interim decision, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario addressed procedural issues regarding party contact information.

The individual respondent, who had not filed a Response, was given a final two-week deadline to do so, failing which the Tribunal would proceed without further notice under Rule 5.5.

The applicant, who wished to keep his new mailing address private from the respondents, was directed to provide an alternative address for service within two weeks to ensure proper communication between the parties.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application on the basis of delay.

The applicant argued that factors existed outweighing the public interest in finality and alleged a reasonable apprehension of bias because the adjudicator was an alumnus of the respondent university.

The Tribunal found that the applicant merely restated earlier submissions and that the adjudicator's status as an alumnus did not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application more than a year after the last incident of alleged discrimination.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for delay.

The applicant submitted that the delay was caused by his understanding that his union was pursuing a complaint on his behalf.

The Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the delay was not incurred in good faith, and allowed the application to proceed, subject to the respondent's right to raise the delay issue later.

The applicant, a five-year-old student with severe autism, sought transportation from his morning Intensive Behavioural Intervention (IBI) therapy centre to his afternoon special education program.

The school board denied the request because the therapy centre did not have a daycare licence, a requirement under its unwritten transportation practices.

The Tribunal found that the daycare licence requirement discriminated against the applicant, as his severe disability prevented him from attending a regular licensed daycare.

The Tribunal held that the board failed to establish that accommodating the applicant would cause undue hardship and failed in its procedural duty to accommodate by not assessing his individual needs.

The board was ordered to pay $10,000 in general damages, out-of-pocket transportation expenses, and to amend its transportation policies.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding filed two Requests for Orders During Proceedings.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to amend her Application to request additional remedial orders and revise her narrative, allowing the respondents three weeks to file amended Responses.

However, the Tribunal denied the applicant's request to add the IATSE Local 461 Health Benefits Trust as a respondent, finding no allegations in the Application that could support an independent basis for a finding of liability against the Trust under the Human Rights Code.

The complainant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights complaint against the school board and an individual respondent.

The complainant argued that the decision was contrary to relevant law and disagreed with the outcome.

The Tribunal applied its Rules of Practice and found no new determinative facts, no conflict with established jurisprudence, and no other factors outweighing the public interest in the finality of decisions.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant requested to amend his application to change the financial and public interest remedies sought.

The Office of the Worker Advisor requested to intervene to address the systemic issue of the Tribunal's jurisdiction to deal with the application.

The respondent did not file a response to either request.

The Tribunal granted the request to intervene on the proposed terms and granted the request to amend the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging abuse and harassment by police officers.

The applicant requested to add the Chief of Police as a party and amend the application to seek monetary compensation, which was granted on consent.

The respondent requested dismissal or deferral of the application because the applicant had filed a parallel complaint under the Police Services Act regarding the same events.

The Tribunal directed the parties to provide an update on the status of the parallel review before the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services and submissions on whether the application should be deferred.