Sherry Liang

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment in employment, culminating in her termination.

The corporate respondent requested early dismissal of the application, relying on a release signed by the applicant after she negotiated an increased severance package.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the parties to provide written submissions on whether the release bars the application from proceeding.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in the operation of a union hiring hall by the respondent, which dispatches members to work on ships in Canadian and American waters.

The respondent submitted that the application was outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction as it operates in a federally regulated industry.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that shipping extending beyond provincial limits falls within federal jurisdiction under s. 92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application, and the respondent subsequently commenced a Small Claims Court action against the applicant for defamation and lost business.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal application be dismissed or deferred pending the civil action.

The applicant filed a Request to Expedite Proceedings, expressing concern about the civil action and alleging reprisal.

The Tribunal denied the respondent's request to dismiss or defer, noting that section 34(11) of the Code does not apply because the civil action was initiated by the respondent, not the applicant.

The Tribunal also denied the applicant's Request to Expedite, finding that the circumstances did not meet the high threshold for urgency.

The applicant filed a Request for Order seeking an emergency hearing to compel the respondent physician to provide three months' medication, following the termination of the physician-patient relationship.

The Tribunal dismissed the request without requiring a response, noting that even if an expedited hearing were held, the Tribunal's remedial powers do not extend to ordering that medications be prescribed.

The applicant filed an application alleging the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board discriminated against him on the ground of disability by delaying and mishandling his claim for benefits.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed for failing to disclose discrimination under the Code, or alternatively, because the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to review WSIB benefit decisions.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision scheduling a conference call to hear oral submissions on whether the alleged facts amount to discrimination and whether the WSIB's actions constitute a 'service' under the Code.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed because the applicant failed to provide a required written undertaking regarding appropriate conduct and failed to comply with a publication ban.

The Tribunal cancelled the upcoming hearing and set a schedule for the parties to provide written submissions on the requests to dismiss.

The respondents requested early dismissal of the human rights application under section 34(11) of the Code, arguing that the applicant had filed an Application for Judicial Review in civil court based on the same facts.

The applicant subsequently abandoned the Application for Judicial Review.

The Tribunal found that section 34(11) no longer barred the application and directed the respondents to file a full Response.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in services regarding by-law enforcement and property issues.

The respondent Town had commenced a concurrent civil proceeding against the applicant regarding site alteration, to which the applicant filed a counterclaim alleging unequal treatment and harassment.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the application pending the civil proceeding.

Finding that the civil proceeding involved the same central facts, potential duplication of expert evidence, and similar claims for damages, the Tribunal exercised its discretion to defer the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application which was previously deferred pending the completion of a grievance process.

The respondents filed a request for an order to remove the three individual respondents as parties to the application.

The Tribunal declined to deal with the request at this time, noting it may be renewed when the grievance process is completed and the Tribunal is requested to proceed with the application.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in services on the basis of race and disability, and reprisal, after being barred from the John Howard Society.

The respondents requested summary dismissal, arguing no nexus to a prohibited ground, and sought removal of the individual respondents.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the applicant to provide submissions on whether the allegations could amount to a Code violation and whether the individual respondents should be removed.

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

The Tribunal noted that inadequate language skills do not constitute a disability under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the applicant to provide written submissions on why her claim falls within the Tribunal's jurisdiction before deciding whether to dismiss or proceed with the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging racial discrimination by a mediator at the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed on preliminary grounds, including statutory immunity, improper naming of the Board, and failure to make out a claim under the Code.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the applicant to provide submissions on whether the personal respondent should be removed, whether the Board is a proper respondent, and whether the allegations, if true, constitute a Code violation.

The respondents filed a Request for Reconsideration of an interim decision that denied their request to defer the Application pending arbitration under the Condominium Act.

The Tribunal noted that the interim decision was not a final decision subject to reconsideration under Rule 26.1.

However, the Tribunal treated the request as a renewal of the request to defer based on subsequent facts and directed the applicant to provide a written response.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application.

The request was filed beyond the 30-day deadline.

The applicant argued that he had new evidence, that the decision conflicted with established case law, and that other factors outweighed the public interest in finality.

The Tribunal found that the alleged new evidence would not have changed the original finding that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant failed to meet the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26 and dismissed the request.

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

The Tribunal noted that upon death, the estate takes over the rights of the deceased.

The Tribunal directed the applicant's representative to advise whether she acts for the estate and to provide confirming documentation, deferring consideration of the respondent's request in the interim.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging racial discrimination after being denied a start-up housing benefit by the Ontario Disability Support Program.

The respondents filed a response detailing the interaction and requested the removal of the individual respondent.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the applicant to provide submissions on whether the allegations, if assumed true, provide a basis for a Code violation, and whether the individual respondent should be removed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging a racially motivated refusal to provide services.

The respondents requested dismissal, arguing the application lacked particulars and was frivolous and vexatious.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the applicant to provide submissions on whether the allegations, if assumed to be true, provide a basis for a finding of discrimination under the Code, and to provide specific details regarding the Ministry's alleged actions.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking leave to amend the Application.

The respondents consented to the amendments, which clarified the applicant's position without adding new issues.

The Tribunal granted leave to amend the Application and set deadlines for amended Responses and Reply.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging workplace discrimination by his former employer, the LCBO.

The LCBO sought early dismissal on the grounds that the applicant had signed a Full and Final Release upon accepting a separation package in 2006, and that the application was filed beyond the one-year limitation period.

The Tribunal found that the applicant voluntarily accepted the settlement and Release, and that economic pressure or time constraints did not amount to duress.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the nearly three-year delay in filing the application.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process and for being out of time.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application.

The request was filed beyond the thirty-day deadline.

The Tribunal found that even if the deadline were waived, the applicant failed to establish any grounds for reconsideration under Rule 26.5, as he merely restated his previous arguments and expressed dissatisfaction with the adjudicator without showing any conflict with established jurisprudence or procedure.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.