Sherry Liang

The applicant, a police officer with permanent medical restrictions preventing him from performing front-line duties, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability after being transferred to the Central Alternative Response Unit (CARU) and having his firearm removed.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario dismissed the application, finding that the transfer and the removal of the firearm were appropriate accommodations that allowed the applicant to continue working as a police officer.

The Tribunal held that the employer's actions fulfilled its duty to accommodate and did not constitute discrimination, as the applicant was not entitled to his preferred accommodation.

The applicant, a teacher, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability after her employment was terminated pursuant to a long-term disability guideline negotiated between the school board and the union.

The respondents sought to dismiss the application for delay, as it was filed more than four years after the termination.

The Tribunal found that the termination was the last incident of alleged discrimination and rejected the applicant's argument that the discrimination was ongoing.

The Tribunal also found that the delay was not incurred in good faith, as the applicant's efforts to pursue her rights through the union grievance process did not justify the delay.

The application was dismissed as untimely.

In an interim decision regarding a human rights application, the respondents objected to the inclusion of evidence concerning a 2004 refusal of 'exceptional case status' in the first phase of a bifurcated hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the objection, confirming that the allegation of discrimination in the promotion process would be heard in the first phase, as no timeliness objection had been raised earlier.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability by the WSIB and his employer, Expertech.

The WSIB and Expertech requested early dismissal.

The Tribunal found that the allegations against the WSIB did not raise an arguable claim of discrimination, as there was no evidence of unequal treatment based on disability.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim against Expertech, finding it was an abuse of process and barred under section 45.1 of the Code, as the applicant had previously signed a full and final release settling the matters and the Canadian Human Rights Commission had already determined the claim was barred by that release.

The applicant, a teacher, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal against her employer and union.

The respondents sought summary dismissal of the application.

The Tribunal found that the allegations were filed outside the one-year limitation period and that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay.

Furthermore, the Tribunal determined that the allegations had no reasonable prospect of success, as the applicant could not establish a link between the respondents' actions and a prohibited ground of discrimination.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought to re-activate his human rights application six months after the deadline under Rule 14.4, following the conclusion of a related Police Services Act proceeding.

The respondents opposed the late re-activation, arguing prejudice and delay.

The Tribunal waived the strict application of the Rules, finding that the applicant had a reasonable, albeit mistaken, belief that he did not need to act immediately based on advice from a Case Processing Officer, and that dismissing the otherwise timely application would not be fair or just.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board discriminated against him on the ground of disability.

He claimed that the WSIB wrongfully denied him loss of earnings benefits after he was terminated from his employment due to behavioural issues caused by medication prescribed for a workplace back injury.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's allegations amounted to a disagreement with the WSIB's benefits decision and did not raise an issue of unequal treatment or discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the application because it appeared to fall outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction by failing to identify specific acts of discrimination.

The applicant did not file written submissions in response.

The adjudicator decided not to treat the failure to file submissions as an abandonment of the application.

Finding that it was not plain and obvious that the application fell outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction, the adjudicator directed that the application continue to be processed and served on the respondents.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment.

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

After reviewing the applicant's submissions, the Tribunal applied the plain and obvious test and found it was not clear that the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal directed that the application be processed and served on the respondent, noting the respondent could still raise the delay issue.

The applicant filed two separate human rights applications alleging discrimination in housing based on receipt of public assistance.

The first application named the corporate landlord, and the second named the individual property manager.

The Tribunal ordered that the two applications be dealt with together as they arise from the same events.

Noting that the individual respondent had failed to file a response, the Tribunal issued an interim decision extending the deadline to file a response and warning that failure to do so could result in the matter proceeding without further notice to her.

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

After failing to respond to a Notice of Confirmation of Hearing and a subsequent Case Assessment Direction, and with mail correspondence returned as 'Moved/Unknown', the applicant was deemed to have abandoned the application.

The application was dismissed.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice within the required timeframe.

As a result, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss and a subsequent Case Assessment Direction, requiring the applicant to provide written submissions regarding whether the application was within the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to both directions.

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

The applicant alleged constructive discrimination in the promotion process.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision confirming that the hearing and disclosure would be bifurcated into two phases.

The first phase would address the individual allegations of discrimination, including the refusal of 'exceptional case status', while broader statistical and contextual evidence would be deferred to the second phase.

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

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to comply with disclosure obligations under Rules 16 and 17, warning that failure to do so could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond to the directions or provide the required documents.

Consequently, the Tribunal found the application abandoned and dismissed it, cancelling the scheduled hearing.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, advising that the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction due to a civil proceeding, and directed the applicant to provide written submissions.

The applicant failed to file any submissions by the deadline.

Consequently, the Tribunal found the application to be abandoned and dismissed it.

The respondent, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings to be removed as a respondent to the human rights application.

The applicant consented to the request, and the co-respondent took no position.

The Tribunal granted the request and amended the style of cause accordingly.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the application on the basis that it appeared to be outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice by the specified deadline.

Consequently, 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, claiming she was denied full-time employment since 2002.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred because the applicant had also filed a union grievance regarding the same recent events, which was proceeding to arbitration.

The Tribunal found that the arbitrator would be dealing with the same factual matrix and had the authority to consider human rights issues.

To avoid concurrent proceedings and the risk of inconsistent decisions, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the arbitration.

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

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation session and subsequently failed to respond to a Tribunal direction inquiring about his intentions with respect to the application.

As a result, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.