Sherry Liang

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination and reprisal against his union regarding the denial of retirement incentive benefits and a partial refund of contributions.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision on the timeliness of the application.

The Tribunal found that the allegations regarding the denial of benefits and the refusal of a full refund were untimely, as they were filed between two and five years after the events, and the applicant's pursuit of other forums did not constitute a good faith reason for the delay.

However, the Tribunal allowed the reprisal claim regarding a delayed refund cheque to proceed to a hearing, where its timeliness would be determined.

The complainant requested a Tribunal ordered inquiry under section 44 of the Human Rights Code, citing concerns about inadequate disclosure and seeking to expand the scope of the hearing.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that section 44 is not a substitute for the usual production process and that the request was made too late.

The Tribunal also declined to reconsider its previous decision limiting the scope of the hearing.

The Tribunal deferred a ruling on the respondent's request to prohibit the complainant's representative from appearing until the hearing.

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 submissions within the required time.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the ground of disability and reprisal.

He subsequently filed a Request for Interim Remedy seeking a continuation of his salary retroactive to November 2009, arguing that his loss of income would lead to negative health impacts.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant failed to establish that an interim financial remedy was necessary to preserve the Tribunal's ability to order a complete and effective remedy at the conclusion of the hearing.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision consolidating four human rights applications against the same respondent.

Given the significant overlap in facts and issues, and because the parties did not consent to mediation, the Tribunal directed that the matters be heard together and a Notice of Hearing be issued.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw her human rights application pursuant to section 45.9 of the Human Rights Code and Rule 10 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondents made no submissions.

The Tribunal granted the request and the application was withdrawn.

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 reprisal by her union and its representative.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, questioning whether the allegations fell within its jurisdiction under section 8 of the Human Rights Code.

After reviewing the applicant's submissions, which alleged the union failed to support her in a meeting with her employer due to her pending human rights application against the employer, the Tribunal concluded it was not plain and obvious that the matters were outside its jurisdiction.

The Tribunal directed that the application be processed and served on the respondents.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and record of offences, more than a year after the last alleged incident.

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

The applicant argued the delay was incurred in good faith because she was unaware of her rights until her doctor informed her.

The Tribunal found this explanation unreasonable, as the applicant believed she was being treated unfairly at the time and had a year to investigate her rights.

The application was dismissed for delay.

The applicant, a twelve-year-old minor hockey player, filed an application alleging that residency rules requiring players to play with a team matching their place of residence discriminate on the basis of sex and gender.

The applicant filed a Request to Expedite the Application, citing upcoming hockey tryouts.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the circumstances did not meet the high threshold of true urgency required to expedite the process.

The Tribunal also directed the applicant to file a Notice of Constitutional Question if he intended to pursue a claim of discrimination based on age, given the Code's definition of age as 18 years or more.

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

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

The applicant argued she was unaware of her right to apply to the Tribunal until she read a newspaper article and thought she had to wait for other complaint processes to conclude.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, as she had an obligation to make inquiries about her rights and did not need to exhaust other avenues first.

The application was dismissed as it was plain and obvious the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the ground of disability.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application failed to specify how the employer's actions breached the Code.

After receiving written submissions from the applicant alleging that a three-day suspension was part of harassment resulting from a workplace injury, the Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the application fell outside its jurisdiction.

The Tribunal directed that the application continue to be processed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging harassment based on disability following a workplace injury.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code or deferred pending the applicant's appeal to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) regarding her chronic pain claim.

The Tribunal found it premature to dismiss the application under section 45.1 as the WSIB proceeding was not yet final.

However, given the overlap in issues regarding the applicant's disability, the Tribunal deferred the application pending a decision from the WSIB Appeals Resolution Officer.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision dismissing her human rights application as abandoned.

She argued she did not receive the Tribunal's interim decision because it was sent to an outdated email address.

The Tribunal reviewed its file, confirmed the error, and revoked the dismissal decision, granting the applicant an extension to file her written submissions.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in housing, naming her landlords and several institutional bodies as respondents.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for failure to identify specific acts of discrimination.

In response, the applicant alleged her landlords discriminated against her because she is a black, single Christian female, but made no such allegations against the institutional respondents.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the Landlord and Tenant Board, Peel Police, and City of Mississauga, but allowed it to proceed against the individual landlords.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and marital status.

She requested to expedite the application, citing financial, physical, and mental stress, and the risk of job positions being filled.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the circumstances did not meet the high threshold of true urgency required to prioritize the application over other matters.

The applicant filed a human rights application on behalf of her deceased mother.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, questioning whether the application was filed in time and whether the applicant had standing to bring the application on behalf of the estate.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's mother died intestate and no estate administrator had been appointed by the courts.

The Tribunal held that without a will appointing her as executrix or a court order appointing her as estate administrator, the applicant lacked the lawful authority to act on behalf of the estate.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a twelve-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 to expedite the application because of upcoming hockey tryouts.

The Tribunal denied the request to expedite, finding that the applicant had not demonstrated truly urgent circumstances, as the alleged discrimination was ongoing and the applicant had delayed in bringing the application.

The Tribunal also provided case management directions, including requiring a Notice of Constitutional Question if the applicant intended to pursue an age discrimination claim.

The applicant, a ten-year-old minor hockey player, filed a human rights 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 filed a Request to Expedite the application to have a decision before upcoming hockey tryouts.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant had not identified truly urgent circumstances that would prevent a fair and just resolution, noting that the alleged discrimination was ongoing and the applicant had delayed in bringing the application.

The Tribunal also granted the respondents a partial extension to file their Response and directed the applicant to file a Notice of Constitutional Question if pursuing the age discrimination claim.

The respondent school board filed a Request for an Order during Proceedings seeking to compel the applicant's next friend to provide written permission to use and disclose the applicant's Ontario Student Record (OSR) before filing its Response.

The Tribunal found the request premature, noting that preliminary objections regarding disclosure should generally not be brought prior to pleadings being filed.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to file its Response and directed the applicant's next friend to state in writing whether she consents to the OSR's use.