Sherry Liang

The applicant, a former part-time usher, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and age following his termination for excessive absenteeism.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application had already been dealt with in a grievance arbitration that upheld the termination.

The Tribunal found that the arbitrator had considered the factual underpinnings of the applicant's absences and concluded that the termination was justified under the collective agreement.

As the arbitration proceeding appropriately dealt with the substance of the human rights claim, the application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal's correspondence to the respondent was returned, and the applicant advised that the respondent had moved without a known forwarding address.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide a current address pursuant to Rule 6.6, warning that failure to do so could result in dismissal.

The applicant failed to respond by the deadline, and the application was dismissed as abandoned.

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

The respondent failed to file a Response by the deadline set in the Notice of Application.

The Tribunal issued an Interim Decision directing the respondent to file a Response within 10 days, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice and deem the respondent to have accepted the allegations.

The applicant filed a human rights application.

The respondents failed to file a proper Response in Form 2 within the required timeframe, although the personal respondent sent a letter denying wrongdoing.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondents to file a Response within 10 days, warning that failure to do so could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming the respondents to have accepted the allegations.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice by the specified deadline.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous decision that dismissed his human rights application as abandoned after he failed to attend a teleconference hearing.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, ethnic origin, and sex when the respondents denied his request for Special Priority Status for housing.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's failure to attend the hearing was due to his own mistake, not a lack of notice.

Furthermore, the Tribunal determined that the application had no reasonable prospect of success, as there was no evidence linking the denial of priority housing status to any prohibited grounds of discrimination.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application more than one year after her resignation, alleging discrimination in employment.

She argued the delay was due to stress and depression, and requested her name be anonymized because she is a police officer.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to provide medical evidence to establish the delay was incurred in good faith.

The Tribunal also denied the request for anonymization, noting the open justice principle and finding her safety concerns speculative.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be dismissed on the basis of timeliness.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to respond to the request, warning that failure to do so could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to file a response within the required time.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant, a former employee of the Ministry of the Attorney General, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal after being issued a trespass notice prohibiting him from entering a Hamilton courthouse.

The respondents requested dismissal of the application.

Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the discrimination claims, finding no reasonable prospect that the applicant could link the trespass notice to his race, ethnic origin, creed, or sexual orientation.

However, the Tribunal allowed the reprisal claim to proceed, finding that the applicant might be able to establish a link between the respondents and the issuance of the trespass notice as retaliation for his previous human rights grievances.

The self-represented applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled summary hearing, citing the need for time to prepare a motion that he believed would shed light on the hearing.

The respondents did not consent to the adjournment.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario denied the request, finding that the applicant's reason did not constitute exceptional circumstances as required by the Tribunal's Practice Direction on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Requests for Adjournments.

The applicant requested to re-activate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending an appeal before the Special Education Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the Special Education Tribunal appeal process was complete and ordered the application re-activated.

However, the Tribunal 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 substance of the application had been appropriately dealt with in the other proceeding.

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

The respondents failed to file a Response by the deadline.

The Tribunal issued an Interim Decision directing the respondents to file a Response within 10 days, warning that failure to do so could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming the respondents to have accepted the allegations.

The respondents requested the dismissal of allegations pre-dating July 2004 due to delay, and the dismissal of systemic discrimination claims for failing to establish a prima facie case.

The Tribunal found that the pre-2004 allegations were not part of a series of incidents and dismissed them as untimely.

However, the Tribunal declined to dismiss the systemic discrimination claims, finding it premature to conclude there was no reasonable prospect of success.

To manage the broad scope of evidence, the Tribunal directed that the hearing be bifurcated between individual allegations and broader contextual evidence, as well as between liability and remedy.

The applicant, who has cerebral palsy, alleged discrimination after being denied membership in the respondent canoe club.

The applicant filed a Request to Expedite the Application, arguing she would miss the 2012 paddling season if the matter was not heard quickly.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the respondents had indicated a willingness to accept her application and accommodate her, and that the applicant's fear of further discrimination was speculative.

The Tribunal concluded there were no truly urgent circumstances requiring an expedited hearing.

The applicant, a female paddler, alleged gender discrimination and reprisal by the respondent canoe club.

She requested an expedited hearing because she was excluded from club activities and risked missing the upcoming short paddling season.

The Tribunal granted the request to expedite, finding that the imminence of the season and the lack of other local clubs constituted urgent circumstances requiring rapid resolution.

The applicant filed a human rights application.

The respondents failed to file a response despite being granted an extension of time.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondents to file a response within 10 days, along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice to them.

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

At a conference call hearing, the applicant stated she did not wish to continue with her application.

The Tribunal granted leave to withdraw the application and closed the file.

The respondents requested that the human rights application be dismissed after the applicant failed to file a Reply and a Response to a Request for an Order During Proceedings within the directed timelines.

The applicant contacted the Tribunal directly, explaining she had been unable to reach her legal representative and requested an extension to retain new counsel.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application, finding that the potential prejudice to the respondents was minimal, especially since they had themselves requested a deferral pending a WSIB appeal.

The Tribunal granted the applicant an extension of time to file the required submissions.

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

She failed to attend a scheduled mediation session and subsequently failed to respond to a Tribunal direction inquiring about her intentions with respect to the application.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Request to Dismiss the Application on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release with respect to the same issues.

The applicant was directed to respond but failed to do so within the specified time.

As a result, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.