Sherry Liang

The applicant alleged that the WSIB discriminated against him by failing to accommodate his learning disability in a Labour Market Re-Entry program.

The WSIB requested an order dismissing the application, arguing that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the WSIB has exclusive jurisdiction over matters arising under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, and its adjudicative decisions are not 'services' under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding it was not plain and obvious that it lacked jurisdiction, and deferred the issue to be determined with a full factual matrix.

The applicant filed a request to re-activate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the outcome of related union grievances.

The request was filed more than nine months after the union withdrew the grievances, well beyond the 60-day time limit set by Rule 14.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide submissions explaining the delay and why the application should proceed, and allowed the respondents to reply regarding any prejudice.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal following a layoff.

The applicant requested to expedite the application, citing financial hardship that could lead to the loss of her apartment.

The Tribunal denied the request, applying its established jurisprudence that financial harm does not constitute an urgent circumstance warranting priority over other matters.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of family and marital status following her dismissal.

She requested to expedite the application because the respondent was hiring for her former position, which she feared would prevent her from regaining it if successful.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the risk of a position being filled does not constitute an urgent circumstance warranting expedited processing over other matters.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal regarding his discharge from employment.

The applicant's union had also filed a grievance over the discharge, which was referred to arbitration.

Both the union (as an intervener) and the respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the outcome of the grievance process.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the concurrent grievance proceeding dealt with the same central issue and was well underway, making deferral appropriate.

The applicant, a university student with learning disabilities, filed an application alleging discrimination in education services after the university denied her request for an Educational Assistant.

She also filed a Request to Expedite Proceedings.

The respondents consented to expediting but requested early production of medical documents.

The Tribunal denied the Request to Expedite, finding no imminent loss of educational opportunity or other urgent circumstances.

Consequently, the Tribunal also dismissed the respondents' request for early document production as premature.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race, colour, ethnic origin, and age after being escorted out of the respondent's offices by security during a dispute over his pension.

The organizational respondent requested an order to remove the personal respondent, an employee involved in the incident, from the proceeding.

The Tribunal granted the request, applying the Persaud factors.

The Tribunal found that the personal respondent was acting in the course of his employment, the organizational respondent accepted vicarious liability, and there was no compelling reason to continue the proceeding against the individual.

The applicant was directed by an interim decision to advise the Tribunal of his intent to withdraw or proceed with the application.

Instead of indicating an intent to proceed, the applicant sent a diatribe against the Tribunal.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The respondent alleged that the applicant breached an undertaking to treat Tribunal staff and parties with respect and courtesy.

The Tribunal reviewed the applicant's correspondence and found that he had breached the undertaking by making insulting, offensive, and bizarre comments about the respondent, its counsel, and the Tribunal.

The Tribunal requested written submissions from the parties on the appropriate consequences, including whether the application should be dismissed or stayed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in contractual relations against a law firm, one of its lawyers, and a Tribunal Member.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal recuse itself from hearing the application.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing a half-day hearing to receive submissions on the recusal request and on whether the allegations fall within the Tribunal's jurisdiction over contractual relations under the Human Rights Code.

The respondents requested reconsideration of an interim decision that denied their request to defer the human rights application pending arbitration proceedings.

Following the initial decision, the Superior Court of Justice appointed an arbitrator and confirmed the arbitrator's jurisdiction to deal with the human rights issues arising from the dispute.

Given the Court's clarification, the Tribunal granted the renewed request for deferral to avoid parallel proceedings, deferring the application pending the completion of the arbitration process.

The applicant filed a human rights application against his employer and nine individual respondents.

The Tribunal directed the organizational respondent to file a Response and make submissions on whether it is appropriate to proceed against the individual respondents, applying the factors from Persaud.

The Tribunal also treated the applicant's submissions as a request to add his union representative as a respondent and invited submissions on that issue.

The individual respondents were not required to file Responses at this time.

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

After failing to attend mediation, the applicant was directed to respond to the respondent's request to dismiss and provide an explanation.

The applicant failed to provide the required submissions despite being granted an opportunity to file late.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant sent an email to the Tribunal indicating he was not interested in pursuing his human rights application.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the applicant to either file a Form 9 to formally withdraw the application or advise the Tribunal of his intent to proceed by November 13, 2009, failing which the application may be dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed a third request for an emergency hearing and an order for the respondent physician to provide him with medication, which he subsequently attempted to withdraw.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, noting it lacked the remedial power to order medication prescriptions.

The individual respondent requested an order permitting the disclosure of the applicant's personal health information to defend against the allegations and an extension of time to file a Response.

The Tribunal granted the respondent's request, finding that the Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004 permits such disclosure for the purpose of a proceeding, and extended the time to file a Response.

The applicants filed human rights applications alleging discrimination in the circumstances surrounding the death of Christina Fawcett at a retirement residence.

The respondents filed Requests for Orders During Proceedings seeking to dismiss the applications, arguing that an estate cannot initiate a human rights application under the Code.

The Tribunal directed an initial half-day hearing to deal with the preliminary question of whether the Estate of Christina Fawcett may bring an application under the Code, and waived the filing of Responses pending this determination.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the Salvation Army and the City of Toronto.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed the applicant's request to add nine individual respondents and the City's request to remove two individual respondents.

Applying the Persaud and Smyth factors, the Tribunal dismissed the applicant's request to add respondents, finding the allegations did not support a Code violation.

The Tribunal granted the City's request to remove the two individual respondents, as the City accepted responsibility for their conduct and there was no compelling reason to proceed against them individually.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging his employment was terminated as a reprisal for a prior human rights complaint.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred or dismissed because the termination was already the subject of an ongoing grievance arbitration.

The Tribunal found considerable factual overlap between the proceedings and deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process.

The applicant, a minor student with learning disabilities, filed an application alleging the respondent school board failed to accommodate him.

The respondent requested production of the applicant's Ontario Student Record, which the Tribunal declined to order prior to mediation, leaving it to the parties to resolve.

The applicant requested anonymization due to the sensitive medical information involved and potential stigma at his new school.

With the respondent's consent, the Tribunal granted the request to use initials for the applicant and his next friend.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on 'record of offences' and 'reprisal', claiming the respondent forged his signature and lied to the WSIB.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that the allegations appeared to fall outside the scope of the Human Rights Code, as they did not relate to the statutory definitions of 'record of offences' or 'reprisal'.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide written submissions explaining why the application is within its jurisdiction, failing which the application would be dismissed.