Sherry Liang

The respondents requested an order prohibiting the applicant from posting information related to the human rights proceedings on the internet and requiring him to remove existing postings.

The Tribunal held an expedited hearing, which the applicant argued was unlawful due to short notice.

The Tribunal rejected this argument, finding the applicant had actual notice and was not prejudiced.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was responsible for internet postings containing inflammatory and irrelevant assertions about the respondents.

To protect the integrity of the process and prevent intimidation, the Tribunal ordered a publication ban on the names of individual respondents and individuals named in the materials.

Due to the applicant's abusive and profane conduct during the hearing, the Tribunal also ordered him to provide a written undertaking to abide by appropriate conduct expectations, failing which the Application may be dismissed as an abuse of process.

The applicant filed a human rights application against his former employer, an interprovincial trucking company.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss to determine whether the matter fell under federal or provincial jurisdiction.

Finding that the employer's business involved interprovincial transportation and the applicant's work maintaining trucks was integral to that federal undertaking, the Tribunal concluded it lacked jurisdiction.

The application was dismissed as the matter falls under the Canadian Human Rights Act.

The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination on the basis of family status and requested to expedite the process due to financial hardship resulting from unemployment.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that financial pressures do not meet the high threshold of truly urgent circumstances required to prioritize the application over other matters.

The applicant filed a Request for Order seeking an immediate payment of $50,000 because the individual respondent failed to file a Response to the human rights application.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that it does not order full damages without further steps when a respondent fails to respond.

The Tribunal directed the individual respondent to file a Response within 10 days, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging his employment was terminated contrary to the Code.

He also filed a Request to Expedite the Application, seeking to have the circumstances known to the members prior to an upcoming Annual General Meeting.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate truly urgent circumstances or that a remedy would be moot without expediting the process.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the Toronto Transit Commission and the City of Toronto.

The City of Toronto filed a Request for Order seeking to be removed as a respondent, which was consented to by the other parties.

The Tribunal granted the request and amended the style of cause to remove the City of Toronto as a respondent.

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation session after previously missing a hearing date.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed.

The Tribunal noted the resources expended by both the Tribunal and the respondent, but declined to dismiss the application without giving the applicant an opportunity to respond.

The applicant was directed to provide an explanation for her absence, failing which the application may be deemed abandoned and dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application and was subsequently granted a request to amend her application to include a claim of reprisal dismissal.

The respondent Metroland filed an amended response and reiterated its request for an adjournment of the upcoming hearing.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, directing that the hearing proceed as scheduled.

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

The respondent consented to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability (drug addiction) following his termination from employment.

He brought a request to expedite the proceedings, citing dire financial circumstances and stress.

The Tribunal denied the request to expedite, finding that the financial harm described did not warrant priority over other matters and noting the complexity of the issues.

The Tribunal also directed the applicant to provide submissions detailing how the nine individual respondents named in the application violated the Code before requiring them to respond.

The applicant, a condominium owner who rents her units to college students, filed a human rights application alleging that the condominium corporation's enforcement of its single-family residence declaration discriminates on the basis of age, family status, and marital status.

The applicant brought a request for an interim remedy seeking an order directing the corporation to issue permanent access cards to her new student tenants.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the corporation was willing to issue the cards subject to certain conditions, such as providing lease information to ensure compliance with a prior court order.

The Tribunal concluded that the balance of convenience did not favour the applicant and the interim remedy was not necessary to ensure an effective final remedy.

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

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking leave to amend their Response to add facts not in their possession at the time of filing.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding no apparent prejudice given the early stage of the proceedings, and allowed the applicant to file a supplementary Reply.

The respondents requested the early dismissal of a human rights application, arguing it was barred by section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code because the applicant had filed a counterclaim in a concurrent civil proceeding based on the same facts.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that while the civil counterclaim alleged discriminatory and harassing behaviour, it did not explicitly claim an infringement of the Code or seek a remedy under section 46.1.

The Tribunal directed the parties to provide written submissions on whether the application should be deferred pending the completion of the civil litigation.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, and creed arising from his arrest by the respondent police service.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal denied the applicant's request for an order to submit evidence, noting no such order is required.

The Tribunal also directed the parties to file written submissions on several outstanding preliminary issues, including whether the application was filed outside the one-year time limit, whether certain individual respondents should be added or removed, and whether the application disclosed a prima facie case of discrimination.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss and Notice of Intent to Defer.

After reviewing the applicant's submissions, the adjudicator found it was not plain and obvious that the Application was outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction or should be deferred pending grievance proceedings.

The Tribunal directed that the Application be sent to the respondent and the union.

The applicant requested a Tribunal ordered inquiry under section 44 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that such an inquiry is not a routine event and should not substitute the usual production process.

The applicant failed to explain why the usual production process was inadequate or what specific evidence she was seeking.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the mother of his deceased same-sex common-law partner.

The applicant claimed the mother refused to acknowledge their relationship and denied him access to the deceased's belongings.

The Tribunal dismissed the claim against the individual respondent for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the dispute arose from a family relationship rather than a protected social area under the Human Rights Code, such as housing, employment, or services.

The applicant, a junior kindergarten student with life-threatening allergies, filed a human rights application alleging the respondent school board failed to accommodate his disability by refusing to agree to an appropriate individual accommodation plan.

The applicant requested to expedite the proceedings, arguing he would be unable to attend school in September without a satisfactory plan.

The Tribunal dismissed the request to expedite, finding the applicant had not demonstrated truly urgent circumstances that would undermine a fair adjudication, and noted the complexity of the accommodation issues required a full response.

The applicant filed a request to expedite proceedings and a request for an interim remedy in relation to human rights applications alleging breach of settlement, discrimination on the basis of disability, and reprisal.

The Tribunal denied the request to expedite, finding that the applicant's financial pressures and resulting stress did not meet the high threshold of truly urgent circumstances.

The Tribunal also denied the request for an interim remedy of returning to work with accommodation, as the applicant failed to provide the required signed declarations to establish an evidentiary foundation and the extraordinary measure was not justified.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination and requested that it be expedited due to financial pressure and fear of being forced to leave the country.

The Tribunal denied the request to expedite, finding that the financial pressures described did not meet the high threshold of true urgency required to prioritize the application over others.

The Tribunal also extended the time for the respondent college to respond to the applicant's request for an order compelling the college to provide mailing addresses for several individual respondents.