Sherry Liang

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the NOID by the deadline.

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

The applicant, a teacher, alleged that the school board discriminated against her on the basis of age when it failed to promote her to a Vice-Principal position at her own school.

The school board maintained that she was not considered for the position due to a legitimate practice against promoting teachers to administrative roles within the same school.

The Tribunal found the school board's explanation credible and not inherently discriminatory, concluding that the applicant failed to establish that the decision was tainted by age-related discrimination.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the ground of disability by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) regarding a Return to Work Specialist's assessment that certain assistive devices were not medically required.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal concluded that even if the WSIB's assessment was wrong or unfair, there was no evidence to suggest the applicant was treated unequally because of a disability.

The respondent Police Services Board requested that the human rights application be deferred pending the completion of a related arbitration under the Police Services Act.

The applicant agreed to the deferral.

The Tribunal found that there was a substantial overlap in the facts of the two proceedings and that deferral would avoid simultaneous litigation and the possibility of inconsistent findings.

The application was deferred pending the completion of the arbitration.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed the applicant's Requests for Orders During Proceedings (RFOP).

The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's request to deem the respondent to have waived its rights due to an allegedly late response, finding the response was timely.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant's request for early production of his personnel file as premature.

Finally, the Tribunal directed the parties to provide written submissions on whether the application should be dismissed as untimely.

The applicant, an injured worker with a learning disability, alleged that the WSIB discriminated against him by changing his Labour Market Re-Entry (LMR) plan from a multi-year academic upgrading program to a short-term retail training program upon learning of his disability.

The WSIB challenged the HRTO's jurisdiction, arguing it had exclusive jurisdiction over benefits under the WSIA.

The HRTO found it had concurrent jurisdiction to hear the human rights claim.

On the merits, the HRTO held that the WSIB discriminated against the applicant by failing to explore accommodations for his learning disability before changing his LMR plan.

The HRTO awarded $5,000 for injury to dignity and ordered the WSIB to amend its LMR policies.

The applicant filed a human rights application against his union and his former employer, alleging discrimination on the basis of race, ancestry, ethnic origin, disability, and creed, as well as reprisal.

The union requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success, and the employer sought dismissal for delay.

The Tribunal found no reasonable prospect that the union's handling of the applicant's grievances, including its decision to settle, was discriminatory or failed to accommodate his disability or religion.

The Tribunal also found that the application against the employer was filed beyond the one-year limitation period without a good faith explanation for the delay.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

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

The respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to be removed as a respondent without filing a complete response.

The Tribunal directed the respondent to file a complete response before it would consider any preliminary objections.

When the respondent failed to file a response by the deadline, the Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent of the consequences of failing to participate under Rule 5.5.

The respondent was granted 10 days to file a response and explain the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment based on an offensive joke made by a manager.

The applicant had also filed a grievance regarding the same incident through her union.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the completion of the grievance process.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting its general practice of deferring applications where there is an ongoing grievance under a collective agreement based on the same facts and human rights issues.

The application was deferred and the requirement to file a response was held in abeyance.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

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

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondents of the consequences of failing to participate under Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, and granted them 10 days to file a Response along with an explanation for the delay.

The applicant filed an affidavit late due to inadvertence in counsel's office.

The Tribunal accepted the late affidavit, finding the delay brief and no prejudice to the respondents, but allowed the respondents to cross-examine the applicant.

The Tribunal declined the respondents' request to compel a Tribunal staff member to testify, noting there is no rule permitting such compulsion under section 32(11) of the Human Rights Code.

A hearing was scheduled to receive evidence on the affidavit.

The applicant filed an application under 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, along with an explanation for the delay, warning that failure to do so could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming the respondent to have accepted the allegations.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in housing.

The Tribunal lost contact with the applicant and her representative, as the phone number provided was out of service and mail was returned.

After the applicant failed to respond to a Case Assessment Direction requiring her to provide updated contact information, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

The Tribunal received notice that the respondent had been declared bankrupt and his property assigned to a trustee.

Pursuant to section 69 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, proceedings for the recovery of a claim provable in bankruptcy are stayed.

The Tribunal held the application in abeyance and directed the applicant to advise within one year if the stay is lifted or no longer in effect.

The respondents requested an order during proceedings to hold the requirement to file a Response in abeyance and to adjourn the applications pending a motion to dismiss them as an abuse of process and declare the applicant a vexatious litigant.

The Tribunal granted the requested orders, noting the history of multiple related applications filed by the applicant against the respondents.

The respondents requested an adjournment of a scheduled summary hearing pending the filing of a request to dismiss the application as an abuse of process and to declare the applicant a vexatious litigator.

The applicant opposed the adjournment but provided no submissions.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, noting related applications and overlapping issues.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the City of Ottawa.

The Tribunal directed a hearing on whether the application should be dismissed for delay.

The applicant's union, CUPE Local 503, filed a late request to intervene, which the applicant opposed.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene, noting that the applicant alleged poor or misleading advice by the union caused his delay, meaning the union's interests could be affected.

The scope of the union's participation was left to be determined at the continuation of the hearing.

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled summary hearing, sending an email on the morning of the hearing stating he could not attend due to a migraine.

The respondents' counsel appeared and made submissions.

The adjudicator adjourned the applications pending the filing of a request by the respondents to dismiss the applications as an abuse of process and to declare the applicant a vexatious litigant.

The applicant, a paramedic, filed a request for an interim remedy seeking an order that the respondent employer issue him 100% cotton uniform items.

The employer had requested a new medical form to support his continuing need for a non-standard uniform, which the applicant refused to complete.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the medical form was not overly intrusive, the request was delayed by over a year, and granting the interim remedy would effectively grant part of the final relief sought without a full determination on the merits.

The applicant, a teacher, sought an interim remedy to rescind a requirement that she teach one class, alleging it violated her medical restrictions and constituted a reprisal.

The Tribunal denied the interim remedy, finding that the balance of harm or convenience did not support it and that a complete remedy would still be available at the end of a hearing.

The Tribunal also deferred the Application pending the completion of related grievance proceedings, noting the substantial overlap between the facts and human rights issues in the Application and the ongoing grievances.