Sherry Liang

The applicant filed a request to expedite his human rights application, alleging that the respondent initiated disciplinary proceedings against him at the Financial Services Commission of Ontario as a reprisal.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the alleged harm did not meet the high threshold of true urgency required to prioritize the matter over other applications.

The Tribunal also directed the applicant to comply with the rule requiring all communications to be copied to the respondent.

The applicant filed two human rights applications alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and reprisal.

Following an interim decision, the applicant requested that the Tribunal transfer his applications to the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

The Tribunal noted it lacked the power to transfer applications to another jurisdiction and that the applicant did not require permission to initiate a federal application.

The applications were withdrawn with leave of the Tribunal.

The applicant alleged that the respondents denied him housing on the basis of his age.

The applicant and his father viewed an apartment and sought to rent it together.

The rental agent required both adults to complete the application form as applicants and provide financial information.

The applicant returned the form listing only himself as the applicant and his father as an occupant, which the agent rejected as incomplete.

The Tribunal found that the agent's requirement was based on the father's status as an adult intending to live in the apartment, not on the applicant's age.

The application was dismissed.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission filed a Request for an Order during Proceedings seeking to withdraw from the proceeding without conditions.

As the request was served on all parties with no response, and no transitional directions were required, the Tribunal allowed the Commission's request to withdraw from active participation.

In an ongoing human rights application, the Tribunal previously added Claybrooke Marketing Inc. as a respondent and directed it to file a response.

After no response was received, the Tribunal issued this interim decision warning the respondent of the consequences of failing to participate under Rule 5.5.

The respondent's representative was directed to file a response by June 23, 2009, and to provide a copy of the decision to the trustee in bankruptcy.

The Tribunal also deferred Claybrooke Inc.'s informal request to be removed as a respondent to the hearing on the merits.

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

The parties consented to mediation.

The Tribunal addressed several interim requests filed by the applicant.

The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's request for interim compensation as unjustified prior to a liability finding.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant's requests for document production and witness lists as premature under the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The matter was scheduled for mediation.

The applicant filed a Request to Expedite her human rights application, citing financial hardship due to unemployment and lost income.

The Tribunal reviewed the request under its Rules of Procedure and determined that the financial harm described did not meet the high threshold of true urgency required to warrant giving the application priority over other matters.

The request to expedite was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sex discrimination after being denied opportunities to train for a winter maintenance operator position.

She also filed a grievance through her union based on the same facts.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the application pending the conclusion of the grievance and arbitration process.

Finding that the grievance and application were based on the same facts and issues, the Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability following his dismissal.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE), which had previously represented the applicant and filed a grievance regarding his dismissal, submitted a Request to Intervene.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the union had an interest in the issues of remedy and any potential impact on the collective agreement.

The applicant filed two human rights applications alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment against Rogers Inc. and Kevin Pennington.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision raising the issue of whether it has jurisdiction over the applications, noting that Rogers Inc. may be a federally-regulated business subject to the Canadian Human Rights Act.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide written submissions explaining why the applications fall within provincial jurisdiction, and waived the respondents' requirement to file a response pending the jurisdictional determination.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, race, colour, and place of origin, primarily concerning his termination and the denial of sick pay.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed requests to add parties and clarify the scope of the hearing.

The Tribunal removed the individual respondent, replacing him with the employer, Hamilton Health Sciences Corporation.

The Tribunal declined to add the employer's third-party benefits consultant as a respondent, finding no allegations that could support a Code violation against it.

The Tribunal also noted the applicant had narrowed his claims to focus on his termination due to disability and systemic discrimination in the sick plan, and provided procedural directions for the upcoming hearing.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment based on "reprisal or threat of reprisal," citing a hostile work environment, verbal harassment, and criticism by her manager.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the applicant did not allege that the respondents' behaviour was in response to claiming or enforcing a right under the Human Rights Code, participating in proceedings, or refusing to infringe another's rights.

The Tribunal concluded it lacked jurisdiction over general claims of unfair treatment in employment that are not linked to a prohibited ground under the Code.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of a record of offences after the respondent police service rescinded a conditional offer of employment upon discovering a withdrawn assault charge.

The respondents requested early dismissal, arguing that 'record of offences' under the Human Rights Code does not protect individuals charged but not convicted.

The Tribunal agreed and dismissed the 'record of offences' claim.

However, the Tribunal granted the applicant's request to amend the application to allege discrimination on the basis of race, noting the request was timely and caused no prejudice.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to remove the corporate respondent, which was in receivership, and continue the human rights application against the individual respondents.

The applicant also requested an order compelling the Receiver to provide contact information for two individual respondents who may not have received notice.

The Tribunal ordered the Receiver to provide the current or most recent addresses for the two individuals to facilitate service, deferring the determination of whether the stay of proceedings precluded continuing against the individuals until after notice was delivered.

The respondent Ministry brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings to strike allegations regarding the complainant's suspension and failure to obtain work with a private service provider, arguing they were not part of the original human rights complaint.

The Tribunal found that the allegations were encompassed by the complaint as referred, given the Commission's investigation process.

Alternatively, the Tribunal exercised its discretion to allow an amendment to the complaint, finding no actual prejudice to the respondents and that it would be unfair not to allow the amendment.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, citing incidents between 1992 and 2006.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed on a preliminary basis, relying on a full and final release signed by the applicant upon his early retirement in 2006, and arguing that the allegations were outside the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal scheduled a telephone conference call to hear submissions on the respondent's preliminary requests.

The applicant, a Grade 9 student with special needs, filed an application alleging discrimination in educational services on the basis of disability.

The applicant's mother requested to expedite the proceedings, stating that her son had been home-schooled since October 2008 and she was suffering financial hardship paying for a tutor.

The Tribunal denied the request to expedite, noting that the issues were complex, the application was filed six months after the student was withdrawn from school, and expediting the process would not necessarily resolve the applicant's goal of compelling an investigation into alleged physical abuse.

The applicant, a Grade 9 student with special needs, filed an application alleging discrimination in educational services on the basis of disability against the school board and other respondents.

The applicant filed a Request to Expedite Proceedings, arguing that his behaviour and morale would decrease and he would lose a valuable school year without a standard education.

The school board opposed the request, citing the complexity of the allegations and the number of respondents.

The Tribunal denied the Request to Expedite, finding that the factors described were not meaningfully different from those of many other applicants and that the issues were complex, making an abridged time frame inappropriate.

The Tribunal directed that mediation be scheduled following the filing of Responses.

The complainant alleged discrimination in the provision of policing services on the basis of mental illness.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed several preliminary issues, including requests to strike pleadings, requests for further particulars, and requests for document production.

The Tribunal struck portions of the pleadings that unreasonably expanded the scope of the original complaint, such as allegations regarding police reference checks and historical arrests under the Mental Health Act.

The Tribunal affirmed its jurisdiction to hear allegations that internal police investigations of the complainant's complaints were discriminatory.

The Tribunal ordered the complainant to provide further particulars for certain allegations and ordered the production of specific documents related to the complainant's interactions with the police, declining to apply the O'Connor two-step process for production.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in the termination of his employment, along with a Request to Expedite Proceedings due to the employer ceasing operations.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the application pending a related union grievance.

The Tribunal declined to defer the application because the discontinuance of the company's operations made the arbitration proceedings uncertain.

The Tribunal also denied the Request to Expedite, finding that the company's closure did not warrant giving the application priority over other matters.