Sherry Liang

The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination based on disability and sex, and reprisal.

She subsequently filed a Request to Expedite the Application, citing ongoing issues affecting her health and fears of job or pay loss.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant's concerns regarding potential job loss were speculative and did not meet the high threshold required under the Rules of Procedure to demonstrate truly urgent circumstances warranting an expedited proceeding.

The applicant, a student who recently turned 18, requested an order to anonymize her name in Tribunal communications and to remove her mother as her Next Friend.

The respondents did not object.

The Tribunal granted the requests, noting that anonymization is appropriate to protect the identity of a student regarding incidents that occurred while she was a minor, and that the applicant had reached the age of majority.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment resulting in her termination.

Prior to this, she had commenced a civil action against the respondent seeking damages for wrongful dismissal and alleging discriminatory conduct.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

Finding that the civil claim sought remedies for the same alleged Code infringements based on the same factual context, the Tribunal dismissed the application as barred under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the respondent city in its public transit fare policies, claiming that persons using walkers or wheelchairs ride for free while he, an amputee, is charged fare.

The applicant filed a Request to Expedite the Application, citing physical pain from walking because he cannot afford transit fare.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant provided no medical evidence to support the urgency and that financial inability to pay transit fare does not meet the high threshold for expediting an application.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination and harassment in employment on the basis of sex and disability, along with a Request to Expedite due to financial hardship and health implications while on medical leave.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that purely financial losses and ongoing health implications are common in employment discrimination applications and do not meet the high threshold of true urgency required to expedite the process.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw the human rights application against the named personal respondents.

The respondents made no submissions.

The Tribunal granted leave to withdraw the application against the personal respondents.

Based on an agreement between the applicant and the corporate respondent, the Tribunal ordered the application finally disposed of and closed the file.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission requested to withdraw from a human rights complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of disability.

The complainant requested certain directions in response.

The Tribunal permitted the Commission to withdraw, noting its public interest mandate had been satisfied, and directed the Commission to provide a copy of its investigation file to the complainant.

Other requests by the complainant were denied as they did not arise out of transition issues or would require the Commission's continued active participation.

The applicant, a black man from Sudan, was suspended for three days following a heated workplace altercation with a co-worker.

As a condition of returning to work, the employer required both employees to attend anger management counselling through the Employee Assistance Program.

The applicant refused, alleging the requirement was based on a racial stereotype that black men have a propensity for anger and violence, and his employment was subsequently terminated.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no evidence that the employer's decision was influenced by the applicant's race or a perceived disability, but rather was a standard response under its strict workplace violence policy.

In an interim decision, the applicant withdrew the application against the personal respondents.

The applicant also sought to appeal a previous interim decision that denied consolidation of this application with other related applications.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting there is no appeal from Tribunal decisions and the power of reconsideration does not apply to interim procedural rulings.

The matter was scheduled for mediation.

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

Following the denial of an adjournment request, the applicant sent abusive correspondence to the Tribunal indicating he would not attend the scheduled hearing.

The respondent attended the hearing, but the applicant did not appear.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned due to the applicant's failure to attend and provide submissions in support of his allegations.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

The respondent failed to file a response within the required 35-day period and failed to comply with a previous interim decision directing it to provide employee information.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent that failure to file a response by a specified deadline could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming the respondent to have accepted the allegations.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in goods, services, and facilities on the basis of disability and reprisal.

The applicant also filed a Request to Expedite the Application, citing a rapid decline in physical condition and the need to repair his reputation.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant provided no medical information to support the urgency, that repairing a reputation is not an urgent circumstance, and that the applicant had delayed almost one year before filing the application.

The applicant filed an application alleging sex discrimination and harassment in employment and subsequently requested to expedite the proceedings.

She argued that ongoing incidents caused her emotional distress and that delay would cause irreparable harm.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the emotional impact of ongoing circumstances did not meet the high threshold for urgency compared to other cases.

Furthermore, the ten-month delay between the most significant alleged event and the filing of the application weighed against granting priority.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a hearing scheduled for June 7, 2010, stating that the Human Rights Legal Support Centre needed more time to prepare to represent him.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that it was made well beyond the five-day period following the notice of hearing, and that a change of counsel or decision to retain counsel does not constitute an extraordinary circumstance justifying a late adjournment.

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

He argued that the Tribunal made a premature decision because his related criminal charges had not yet been resolved.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the pending status of the criminal charges was known at the time of the original decision and did not constitute new evidence.

Furthermore, the eventual verdict in the criminal matter would have no bearing on the finding that the application was untimely.

The applicant requested that her human rights application, brought on behalf of her deceased son's estate regarding a refinery closure, be joined with 19 other related applications.

The Tribunal denied the joinder request, noting that significant preliminary issues regarding timeliness and the estate's standing to initiate the application must be resolved first.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to file a Reply, indicate whether she consents to mediation, and clarify whether she intends to proceed against the named personal respondents.

The applicant filed an Application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, accompanied by a Request to Expedite Proceedings.

The Tribunal initially issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the Application only identified reprisal, which appeared to be an error.

After reviewing the applicant's written submissions, the Tribunal determined it was not plain and obvious that the matters raised were outside its jurisdiction and directed that processing continue.

However, the Tribunal denied the Request to Expedite, finding that the alleged financial harm did not constitute an urgent circumstance warranting priority over other matters.

The applicant, a doctoral student, filed a human rights application against the university and several individual respondents alleging discrimination.

The respondents requested the removal of the personal respondents, and the applicant requested an interim remedy to suspend her requirement to pay tuition fees pending the resolution of the application.

The Tribunal granted the request to remove the personal respondents, finding that the university accepted vicarious liability and was capable of remedying any infringement.

The Tribunal denied the request for an interim remedy, finding that the balance of convenience did not favour granting the extraordinary relief before a decision on the merits.

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

The respondent school board filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to remove the personal respondent (a school principal) and replace her with the board, and to dismiss the application for delay and abuse of process.

The Tribunal applied the Persaud factors and granted the request to remove the personal respondent, finding no compelling reason to continue the proceeding against her individually.

On the issue of delay, the Tribunal directed the applicant to file written submissions explaining why the application was filed more than 14 months after the last alleged incident of discrimination.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that the respondent condominium corporation's enforcement of a 'families only' occupancy restriction compelled him to discriminate against his tenants.

The respondent requested early dismissal on the basis that the Superior Court of Justice and the Court of Appeal had already ruled that the occupancy provision did not violate the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the application was barred under section 34(11)(b) of the Code because the courts had finally determined the issue.

The application was dismissed.