Sherry Liang

The applicant requested leave to withdraw her application filed under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondents made no submissions on the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

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

The respondent employer and union requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the completion of a related grievance process scheduled for arbitration.

The Tribunal found that the grievance raised the same facts and human rights issues as the application.

In accordance with its normal approach to concurrent proceedings, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw their human rights application filed under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, pursuant to Rule 10 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondent made no submissions.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw his human rights application pursuant to Rule 10 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondent made no submissions.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw their human rights application filed under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, pursuant to Rule 10 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondent made no submissions.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant filed a human rights application naming multiple individuals and entities as respondents.

The respondents filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to remove all respondents and replace them with the university as the sole respondent.

The applicant consented to the request.

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

The applicant, an occasional teacher, alleged that the school board's system for assigning work discriminated against him on the basis of age by favouring retired teachers.

The respondent and intervenor requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) had already dealt with the substance of the application in a prior duty of fair representation complaint.

The Tribunal found that the OLRB had appropriately dealt with the substance of the issues, concluding that the assignment system did not discriminate on a Code-protected ground.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application arising from comments allegedly made during a mediation that settled a motor vehicle accident lawsuit.

The respondent mediator requested early dismissal, arguing he had judicial immunity under section 82 of the Courts of Justice Act based on the Agreement to Mediate.

The other respondents, who were the applicant's representatives at the mediation, requested to amend their Response to seek early dismissal based on settlement documents.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend the Response and directed the parties to provide written submissions on the issue of judicial immunity.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by former classmates, instructors, and landlords.

The Tribunal removed several respondents based on signed settlement documents and consent forms.

The Tribunal denied the applicant's request to reconsider a previous interim decision and denied his request to order the College to provide mailing addresses for former classmates, finding the allegations against them did not raise an arguable case of discrimination under the Code.

The Tribunal scheduled a telephone conference to hear submissions on whether to order the College to provide the address of a former instructor, whether the allegations against the remaining respondents raise issues under the Code, and whether the application is barred by section 34(11) due to a concurrent civil claim.

The applicant filed a human rights application and subsequently made several requests for interim orders.

The applicant sought to add the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario and an individual as respondents, to order the individual respondent to turn over narcotic prescriptions, to increase the monetary remedy sought to $5 million, and to remove counsel for the individual respondent.

The Tribunal dismissed all requests, finding no allegations supporting a Code violation against the proposed respondents, lacking jurisdiction for the prescription order, finding the requested monetary remedy highly extraordinary, and finding no basis to remove counsel.

The complainant in a human rights proceeding filed requests for an order seeking production of additional documents and information.

The Chief of Police and the Toronto Police Services Board responded, providing some documents and stating others were not in their possession.

The Tribunal declined to order further production at this time and denied the complainant's request for a conference call hearing to make oral submissions, directing that any outstanding issues be addressed at the hearing of the matter.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on record of offences and reprisal, claiming the respondent employer forged documents and lied to the WSIB.

The respondent requested dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.

After the applicant failed to respond to the respondent's request or to a subsequent Interim Decision directing him to provide submissions on jurisdiction, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend his human rights application to include allegations regarding his recent termination from employment.

The respondents objected to deficiencies in the material but alternatively did not object to the amendment provided they could file an amended Response.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend the application and allowed the respondents 35 days to file an amended Response.

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

A hearing was scheduled, but the applicant failed to appear.

The Tribunal confirmed that the applicant had received notice of the hearing and had not requested an adjournment.

As it is the applicant's responsibility to attend and provide evidence in support of the allegations, the Tribunal dismissed the application due to the applicant's failure to appear.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the ground of disability.

The respondent did not file a Response, but instead filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to dismiss the application or order particulars, and requesting an extension of time to file its Response.

The Tribunal directed the respondent to file a full Response, noting that its Rules require a complete Response even when raising preliminary objections, except in specific circumstances not present here.

The respondent's requests were deferred until after the Response and Reply are filed.

The respondents filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to dismiss the human rights application because the applicant had passed away.

The Tribunal received correspondence from counsel for the applicant's estate confirming that the estate would not be proceeding with the matter.

Treating this correspondence as consent, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The applicant, a female journeyman electrician, alleged a pattern of harassment and discrimination on the basis of sex by her employer.

At the hearing, after the applicant presented her evidence, the respondent moved to dismiss the application for failing to establish a prima facie case.

The Tribunal found that the incidents described by the applicant, while occurring in a male-dominated workplace, did not provide an objective basis to infer that she was treated differently or disadvantageously because of her gender.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming she was let go during training because her French language skills were deemed inadequate.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision requesting submissions on jurisdiction, noting that inadequate language skills do not constitute a disability under the Human Rights Code.

As the applicant failed to provide submissions establishing the Tribunal's jurisdiction, the application was dismissed.

The applicants, a husband and wife, filed human rights applications alleging that the respondent church refused them membership because the wife had previously filed a human rights complaint against the church.

The Tribunal noted that the prior complaint was scheduled for a Case Resolution Conference.

Finding that the findings in the prior complaint may have a bearing on the current applications, the Tribunal ordered that the current applications be held in abeyance pending the completion of the prior complaint.

The applicant filed a human rights application but repeatedly used insulting and profane language towards counsel and the Tribunal.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide a written undertaking to abide by expectations of appropriate conduct and to comply with a publication ban regarding the respondents' identities.

The applicant failed to provide the undertaking and continued to post identifying and inflammatory materials on the internet.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as an abuse of process and as abandoned due to the applicant's ongoing refusal to comply with its directions.