Sherry Liang

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The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.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 her human rights application filed under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondent made no submissions on the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw her human rights application against the respondent.

The respondent made no submissions on the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

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

The respondent made no submissions on the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that public statements made by a union leader supporting a ban on Israeli academics constituted discrimination and harassment in employment.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting the application did not identify any employment relationship affected by the statements.

As the applicant failed to provide submissions establishing jurisdiction, the Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it does not have a general power to inquire into offensive statements disconnected from the social areas protected by the Code.

The applicant requested to expedite his human rights application because the corporate respondent was in receivership and facing bankruptcy.

The Tribunal denied the request because a Superior Court order had stayed all proceedings against the corporate respondent.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to obtain leave of the Court or consent of the Receiver to continue.

The Tribunal also requested submissions from the Receiver regarding the provision of contact information for two individual respondents who had not been served.

The applicant filed an application alleging racial discrimination in his employment as a security tenant, arising from an assault by a co-tenant in 2003 and his subsequent termination.

The respondents requested dismissal on the basis of delay and because the matter was previously adjudicated by the WSIAT.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing that a teleconference be scheduled to hear submissions on whether the application should be accepted despite the delay and whether it should be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application against multiple respondents, including government ministries, the Ontario Human Rights Commission, the Ontario Labour Relations Board, the Ombudsman, his union, and his MPP, alleging discrimination and a conspiracy to cover up previous discrimination.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine if the application could proceed.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against several respondents under section 53(8) of the Human Rights Code because the applicant had previously filed complaints about the same subject matter with the Commission.

The Tribunal dismissed the remaining allegations against the Attorney General, the Commission, and the MPP because the mere failure to assist the applicant did not disclose an arguable case of discrimination under the Code.

The applicant alleged that the school board's occasional teacher dispatch system discriminated on the basis of age by favouring retired teachers, and that he experienced reprisals.

The union requested to intervene, noting it helped develop the system and that the applicant's prior complaint to the OLRB was dismissed.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene and scheduled a hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code on the basis that the OLRB proceeding appropriately dealt with the substance of the matter.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application under section 53(8) of the Human Rights Code.

The original application was dismissed because its subject matter was substantially the same as a 2004 complaint filed with the Commission, which the applicant had withdrawn.

The applicant argued that he had new evidence of blacklisting and that his application should not have been dismissed without a hearing.

The Tribunal denied the request for reconsideration, finding that the applicant failed to meet any of the criteria under Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, as he presented no new determinative facts and identified no factors outweighing the public interest in the finality of decisions.

The respondents failed to file a Response to a human rights application.

They subsequently requested an extension of time, explaining that the corporate respondent's president had been hospitalized and passed away, leaving the Tribunal's correspondence unopened.

The Tribunal granted the extension of time and directed the respondents to file their Response by a specified date.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sexual harassment by a co-worker and discrimination by her employer and union in their response.

The applicant sought to amend her application to add an allegation of reprisal, which the Tribunal granted.

The union requested early dismissal under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that an internal employer investigation and a potential complaint to the Ontario Labour Relations Board constituted other proceedings that appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that an internal employer investigation is not a 'proceeding' within the meaning of s. 45.1 and that the mere possibility of another avenue is not a basis for dismissal.

The applicant filed two human rights applications alleging discrimination on the basis of sex and pregnancy, and reprisal for a prior complaint, relating to events before and during her maternity leave.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal considered the applicant's requests for an interim remedy to be paid full-time wages pending the outcome, to expedite the proceedings, and to consolidate the two applications.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for an interim remedy, finding the applicant failed to provide the required signed declarations and that the balance of convenience did not favour the extraordinary relief.

The Tribunal also denied the requests to expedite and consolidate, noting the lack of significant evidentiary overlap and the prejudice to respondents who were not parties to both applications.

The applicant filed a new human rights application that overlapped with an existing proceeding scheduled for a preliminary hearing.

The Tribunal directed that the new application be brought before it at the upcoming hearing to determine the appropriate manner of proceeding, given its relationship to the other file and complaints.

The respondent was not required to file a response at this time.

The complainant alleged that his union discriminated against him on the basis of race and colour by failing to refer him to jobs and showing favouritism towards workers of Portuguese descent.

The respondents brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaint under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the complaint had already been dealt with by the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) in a duty of fair referral complaint.

The Tribunal found that the OLRB proceeding appropriately dealt with the substance of the human rights allegations, as the OLRB had considered whether the union's actions were discriminatory and found no evidence of favouritism based on race or ethnicity.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of age and race, and reprisal, following the termination of his contract as an insurance agent.

He subsequently requested an interim order to stop the respondent from making derogatory comments to clients and false complaints to regulatory bodies.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant failed to comply with the procedural requirements for interim remedies, including using the correct form and providing proper declarations and submissions.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw his 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 complainant and the Commission requested production of documents relating to complaints filed by the complainant under the Police Services Act.

The Toronto Police Association requested leave to intervene to make submissions on the production of these documents.

The Tribunal granted the request to intervene, finding it appropriate given the potential impact on the Association's members and its ability to provide their perspective.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the grounds of race, place of origin, creed, and age.

The respondents requested early dismissal of the application under section 53(8) of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the applicant had previously filed a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission regarding the same subject matter, which was settled and withdrawn.

The applicant argued he signed the settlement under duress and misapprehension.

The Tribunal found that the application was barred under section 53(8) because its subject matter was substantially the same as the prior withdrawn complaint, and noted that an application under section 34 is not the proper forum to challenge the validity of the settlement.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging the respondent school board failed to accommodate his disability between 2001 and 2003.

The application was filed in 2008, nearly five years after the last incident.

The Tribunal considered whether to accept the late application under section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code.

Finding no reasonable explanation for the delay by either the adult applicant or his mother acting as his litigation guardian, the Tribunal concluded the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The application was dismissed as out of time.