Sherry Liang

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sex discrimination regarding her employment status.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss due to delay in filing.

The applicant explained she was awaiting a decision under the Employment Standards Act and a ruling from the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the delay was not incurred in good faith and directed that the application continue to be processed, leaving the final determination on timeliness to be decided after the respondent files a response.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that a court reporter discriminated against her by preparing an inaccurate transcript of a court proceeding.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application was filed more than one year after the last alleged incident of discrimination.

The applicant argued that the delay was due to her pursuit of other legal proceedings and waiting for funding.

The Tribunal found that the incident occurred when the applicant received the transcript and that waiting for other legal proceedings did not constitute a reasonable explanation for the delay.

The application was dismissed as being outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the ground of disability more than one year after the last alleged incident.

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

The applicant explained the delay by stating he was unaware of his rights, was trying to get an education, and was involved in a divorce.

The Tribunal found this was not a reasonable explanation and that the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The application was dismissed as being outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application.

The applicant relied on new evidence and conflict with established law as grounds for reconsideration.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's submissions were either previously addressed, could have been raised earlier, or did not present new determinative facts.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant filed a Request for Order to re-activate her human rights application, which had previously been deferred pending the conclusion of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) Appeals Branch proceeding.

Having regard to the request, the response, and the WSIB decision filed by the applicant, the Tribunal ordered the application to be re-activated.

The applicant, a former member of the respondent housing co-operative, alleged discrimination in housing on the basis of disability and reprisal after the respondent sought and obtained a court order for her eviction due to rent arrears.

The Tribunal found no evidence that the respondent treated the applicant differently because of a disability or failed to accommodate her, noting that the requirement to pay rent does not inherently discriminate against those financially unable to pay due to disability.

The Tribunal also held that pursuing legal rights in court does not constitute a reprisal under the Code.

The application was dismissed.

The respondents filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to defer the human rights application pending the completion of a related grievance proceeding.

The grievance, filed by the applicant's union, alleged a failure to provide suitable accommodation under the collective agreement and the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the facts and human rights issues in both proceedings and deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination after being issued a trespass notice by the respondent university in 2004.

The respondent requested early dismissal on the basis that the application was filed past the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the continuing effects of the 2004 trespass notice did not constitute a continuing contravention or a series of incidents.

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

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sexual harassment and sexual assault by a fellow student at George Brown College.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to explain why the claim against the personal respondent raised issues under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the Code does not cover allegations of discrimination or harassment against fellow classmates, as the personal respondent was not responsible for providing educational services.

The personal respondent was removed as a party, and the application was directed to mediation with the College.

The Service Employees' International Union Local 1 Canada requested intervenor status in two human rights applications filed by a bargaining unit member against her employer.

The union sought to intervene to ensure an accurate record, defend itself against allegations made by the applicant, and address potential impacts on the collective agreement.

As the request was unopposed, the Tribunal granted the union intervenor status, with the extent of participation to be determined by the presiding Vice-chair.

The applicant filed a human rights application against her former employer.

The Tribunal inquired whether the application should be deferred pending the resolution of another legal proceeding, as the applicant had filed a duty of fair representation complaint against her union under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Tribunal found that the LRA application would not deal with the facts and issues in the human rights application, and therefore declined to defer the matter.

The application will continue to be processed.

The applicant requested an order to defer her human rights application pending the mediation of a related civil action she commenced in the Superior Court of Justice.

The respondents did not object to the deferral pending the mediation, though they indicated they would seek to dismiss the application if the applicant attempted to maintain overlapping litigation afterward.

Given the overlap in facts and issues, the Tribunal granted the request to defer the application pending the conclusion of the civil mediation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that a judge of the Ontario Court of Justice discriminated against him by failing to consider his disability when convicting him of impaired driving.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that it has no jurisdiction to consider allegations of discrimination arising out of the exercise of adjudicative functions by a court, applying the principles of judicial immunity and the rule against collateral attack.

The applicant, an employee with a mobility-related disability, sought an interim remedy to park in contractor spaces at the rear of the respondent's building pending the hearing of his human rights application.

The respondent had offered accommodation allowing the applicant to park in handicapped spaces or the closest available guest parking space.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for an interim remedy, finding that the medical evidence did not support the applicant's assertions regarding the harm of not receiving his preferred parking spot, and the balance of harm or convenience did not favour granting the request.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that her union and its chief steward engaged in a reprisal against her by failing to support her workplace harassment claims after she filed a separate human rights application against her employer.

The respondents requested an early dismissal of the application.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of reprisal, as there was no reasonable basis to infer that the union's alleged inaction was intended to retaliate against her for filing an application against her employer.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability following the termination of her contract as an American Sign Language consultant.

The respondents requested early dismissal of the application on the basis that it was filed beyond the one-year time limit under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the application was filed out of time and that the applicant's subsequent efforts to be reinstated did not constitute a series of incidents.

The Tribunal further held that the applicant failed to establish that the delay was incurred in good faith, as she provided insufficient detail and no medical evidence to explain the delay.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the Ontario Provincial Police during an arrest.

The respondent requested the dismissal of the application on the basis that it was filed beyond the one-year time limit under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not provide a reasonable explanation for the delay in filing the application and failed to establish that the delay was incurred in good faith.

The application was dismissed.

The complainant filed human rights complaints alleging discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and disability, as well as reprisals, against his former employer, a school board, and two individuals.

He had also commenced a civil action against the school board for wrongful dismissal and intentional infliction of mental suffering arising from the same events.

The Tribunal held that the complaint against the school board and its human resources director was barred by section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code because the civil action sought remedies for the same alleged Code infringements.

The complaint against the individual respondent who was not named in the civil action was permitted to proceed.

The respondents requested the dismissal of a human rights application under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, arguing that a parallel civil class action barred the application.

The Tribunal found that section 34(11) did not apply because the civil action did not seek remedies for discrimination.

However, the Tribunal granted the respondents' alternative request to defer the application pending the resolution of the civil action, noting the significant factual overlap and the public interest in avoiding duplicate proceedings and inconsistent findings.

The applicant, a secondary school teacher, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by the respondent school board.

The most recent incident occurred in November 2008, but the application was not filed until January 2010, beyond the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued the delay was due to waiting for the outcome of a complaint filed with the Ontario College of Teachers.

The Tribunal found that waiting for other legal proceedings to conclude does not constitute a reasonable explanation for delay and dismissed the application.