Sherry Liang

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, directing the applicant to provide submissions.

The applicant failed to provide any submissions within the required time.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging the WSIB failed to refer him to a medical electro-industrial specialist.

The Tribunal directed the parties to provide submissions on whether the application should be deferred pending the applicant's ongoing WSIB appeal regarding his entitlement to benefits.

Finding that the facts and issues were substantially the same as those in the concurrent WSIB proceeding, the Tribunal deferred the application until the conclusion of the WSIB appeal.

The applicant, a teacher, filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability after being removed from the classroom.

He also filed a Request to Expedite the Application, citing financial pressures and psychological harm.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the circumstances described did not meet the high threshold for urgency required by the Rules of Procedure, and noted that the seven-month delay in filing the application weighed against granting the request.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application due to delay.

She argued the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence and involved matters of public importance, but failed to provide supporting reasons or cite any specific conflicts.

The applicant also objected to the inclusion of her information in the public decision and requested that the Tribunal not publish its decisions on.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, noting that open justice requires parties to know the information relied upon, and declined to depart from its practice of publishing decisions.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application due to delay.

She argued that the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence and that other factors outweighed the public interest in finality, but failed to provide supporting reasons or cite any conflicting jurisprudence.

The applicant also objected to the inclusion of her information in the public decision and requested that the decision not be published on.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, affirming the principles of open justice and its practice of publishing decisions.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the police during his arrest, but filed it more than a year after the incident.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed for delay.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, noting that waiting for other legal proceedings or gathering evidence does not constitute good faith delay under section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed as out of time.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the grounds of sex and sexual solicitation, claiming his supervisor sexually harassed him and subsequently terminated his employment.

The respondents requested early dismissal on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release upon termination.

The applicant argued he signed the release under economic duress due to financial hardship.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant may have been under financial pressure, he had a realistic alternative to signing the release and pursuing his statutory entitlements.

The Tribunal concluded the release was valid and dismissed the application as an abuse of process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that her employer failed to accommodate her disability.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred because the applicant's union had filed a concurrent grievance based on the same facts and human rights issues, which was scheduled for arbitration.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the fair and orderly administration of justice favoured deferring the application until the conclusion of the grievance process.

The applicant, a student with autism spectrum disorder, filed an application alleging the respondent school board failed to accommodate his disability.

The applicant requested to expedite the proceedings, citing an inability to access the curriculum.

The Tribunal declined the request, finding the circumstances were not meaningfully different from other special education cases and that the complexity of the issues warranted the standard response timeframe.

The Tribunal also ordered the use of initials to protect the minor applicant's privacy.

The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination based on disability regarding parking accommodation, along with a Request for Interim Remedy.

The applicant delivered the materials to the respondent by email only, without evidence of the respondent's consent to email delivery as required by Rule 1.21.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to properly deliver the materials using an approved method before the Request for Interim Remedy would be considered.

The applicant, a 12-year-old minor hockey player, filed an application alleging that residency rules requiring players to play within their residential zone or obtain waivers discriminate on the basis of sex and gender.

The applicant requested that the application be expedited due to upcoming hockey tryouts.

The Tribunal denied the request to expedite, finding that the circumstances did not meet the high threshold for urgency.

The Tribunal also directed the applicant to either file a Notice of Constitutional Question regarding the Code's definition of age or abandon the age discrimination claim.

The applicant, a former university student, filed an Application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and sought to expedite the proceedings.

She cited her age, concerns about future job prospects, and the need to repay student loans as urgent circumstances.

The Tribunal denied the Request to Expedite, finding that the applicant's concerns about job prospects were speculative and that financial concerns regarding student loans do not constitute urgent circumstances warranting priority over other matters.

The applicant filed two human rights applications alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal against his union representative and his former employer, arising from alleged workplace zinc exposure.

The respondents requested that the applications be dismissed for delay or deferred pending the outcome of an ongoing union grievance and a WSIB appeal.

The Tribunal found that the grievance and WSIB processes would likely address some of the same factual and legal issues as the human rights applications.

To avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions, the Tribunal deferred the applications pending the completion of the other processes.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing on the basis that she had retained new counsel who needed time to prepare.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the respondent had known of the hearing dates for months and that a change of counsel does not normally constitute an extraordinary circumstance warranting an adjournment.

The applicant, acting as the estate trustee for her deceased son, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and disability.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision addressing whether the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal dismissed the first category of allegations relating to historical workplace harassment, finding them out of time with no reasonable explanation for the delay.

However, the Tribunal deferred its decision on the timeliness of the second category of allegations relating to the closure of the refinery, directing the respondents to file their responses.

The Tribunal sought submissions on whether the name of the applicant, a minor, should be anonymized in its decisions and correspondence.

Both parties agreed that anonymization was appropriate.

The Tribunal ordered the use of initials for the applicant and his next friend, finding that the protection of the applicant's personal information and the potential stigma of disclosing his disabilities outweighed the principle of open justice.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sexual harassment, solicitation, and reprisal at a work site.

The respondents, a contractor and a union steward, requested early dismissal or to be removed as parties, arguing they were not the applicant's employer and the allegations did not establish a prima facie case against them.

The Tribunal directed a one-day hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed against either respondent or if the allegations could support a finding of discrimination or reprisal.

The applicant sought to lift a stay of her human rights application, which had been stayed pending a criminal investigation into her allegations of sexual harassment.

She provided an email from the Ottawa Police Service confirming the investigation was concluded without charges.

The respondents opposed lifting the stay, arguing the police email was unsatisfactory and that further information should be obtained.

The Tribunal found no reason to delay the matter further, lifted the stay, and directed the respondents to file a Response.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision dismissing her human rights application for delay.

She argued that she was living with depression and incapable of making sound decisions.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that this was not a new fact that could not have been provided earlier, and that reconsideration is not an opportunity to repair deficiencies in the presentation of a case.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision dismissing his human rights application regarding his termination from employment.

He sought to introduce new medical evidence of a somatization disorder diagnosis obtained after his termination.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the new evidence could not potentially be determinative of the case because the employer had no knowledge of the condition at the time of the termination and therefore no duty to accommodate was triggered.