Sherry Liang

The applicant, a paramedic, sought an interim remedy directing his employer to issue him new non-standard 100% cotton uniforms.

The employer had requested an updated medical form to support his continuing need for accommodation, which the applicant refused to provide, alleging it was too intrusive.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for an interim remedy, finding that the applicant failed to meet the significant onus under Rule 23.2, noting that it is not extraordinary for an employer to seek updated medical information and that the applicant delayed in making the request.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment and failure to accommodate a disability.

The applicant had also filed two grievances through his union covering the same facts.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred pending the completion of the grievance proceeding.

The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the application and the grievances and deferred the application, noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority to enforce human rights obligations.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability after the respondents required him to sign consent forms before conducting an independent psychological assessment requested by his insurer.

The applicant claimed he had a memory disability and requested to review the assessment report before signing the forms, which the respondents refused.

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

The Tribunal concluded that the requirement to sign the consent forms was not discriminatory and did not preclude the applicant from seeking accommodation from his insurer.

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

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation session and did not communicate with the Tribunal to explain her absence.

After the applicant failed to respond to a subsequent Tribunal direction warning that failure to respond would be deemed an abandonment, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a request to withdraw their human rights application shortly before a scheduled mediation.

The respondents objected, requesting that the application be dismissed with prejudice to prevent future re-filing, citing the time and expense incurred in preparing their response.

The Tribunal granted leave to withdraw the application, noting that if the applicant attempts to re-file the same allegations in the future, the respondents may raise their objections at that time.

The applicant requested an extension of time to file an amended Application, as directed by a previous interim decision.

The applicant's counsel was out of the country and requested an extension to October 14, 2011.

One respondent consented, while the other opposed.

The Tribunal granted the extension of time.

The applicant filed a human rights application and requested an interim remedy to be removed from short-term sick leave and provided with leave at 100% pay pending the resolution of her application.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant failed to establish that the balance of convenience favoured granting the interim remedy or that it was necessary to ensure a complete and effective remedy at the end of the hearing.

The Tribunal also granted the respondent's request for an extension of time to file a response, consolidating the applications.

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

Following a request by the respondents to reschedule mediation, the Tribunal made multiple attempts to contact the applicant to obtain alternative dates and ascertain her intentions regarding the application.

The applicant was warned that failure to respond could result in the file being closed.

As the applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's communications, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

The applicants filed human rights applications against the respondents.

Their counsel subsequently withdrew after losing contact with them.

The Tribunal sent multiple letters to the applicants at their last known addresses and a detention centre, requiring them to confirm their intent to proceed.

The applicants failed to respond.

Pursuant to Rule 5.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal deemed the applications abandoned and dismissed them.

The applicants filed human rights applications alleging discrimination by police officers during a violent altercation at a nightclub.

The respondents requested deferral of the applications pending the outcome of ongoing investigations by the Special Investigations Unit (SIU) and the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD), as well as criminal proceedings against one of the applicants.

The Tribunal granted the deferral, noting the substantial overlap in the subject matter and the statutory restrictions on the respondents' ability to disclose information during an active SIU investigation.

The respondents filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to remove the personal respondent from the human rights application.

The applicant consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted the order and directed that the personal respondent be removed as a party, amending the style of cause accordingly.

The applicant failed to attend a peremptory summary hearing by conference call.

The Tribunal had previously issued a Case Assessment Direction warning that failure to participate or provide medical evidence would result in the application being deemed abandoned.

As the applicant did not appear and provided no correspondence, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application more than one year after her dismissal from employment.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for delay.

The applicant submitted that the delay was due to incorrect advice from her former lawyer regarding the limitation period.

The Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the delay was not incurred in good faith and directed that the application continue to be processed, subject to further submissions from the respondents.

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

She failed to attend a scheduled mediation session and did not respond to subsequent correspondence from the Tribunal inquiring about her intentions.

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

The respondents in a human rights application requested leave to file a Supplemental Response and an order requiring the applicant to produce or consent to the use of his WSIB and LTD files.

The Tribunal granted leave to file the Supplemental Response, finding no specific prejudice to the applicant.

The Tribunal also ordered the applicant to produce the requested documents or consent to their use, as they were arguably relevant to the respondents' defense that they made reasonable offers of accommodation which the applicant refused.

The applicant filed a human rights application which was deferred pending the conclusion of ongoing grievance proceedings.

The Tribunal subsequently wrote to the applicant twice, requesting an update on the grievance proceedings and warning that failure to respond could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's correspondence.

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

The applicant, a former police officer, sought to re-activate his human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment following his acquittal on disciplinary charges under the Police Services Act.

The respondents opposed re-activation due to the applicant's delay and moved to dismiss the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code and as an abuse of process.

The Tribunal dismissed the respondents' motion, finding that the human rights issues were not determined in the disciplinary hearing and that proceeding with the application would not constitute an abuse of process.

However, the Tribunal required the applicant to file an affidavit explaining his delay in requesting re-activation before deciding whether to allow the application to proceed.

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

The Tribunal scheduled a mediation session, which the applicant failed to attend without providing an explanation.

The Tribunal subsequently sent a letter directing the applicant to advise of her intentions regarding the application, warning that a failure to respond within ten days would result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant did not respond to the correspondence.

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

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous decision that dismissed her human rights application due to delay and having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant relied on new medical evidence and her own health issues, as well as alleged conflicts with established jurisprudence.

The Tribunal found that the new medical evidence would not have affected the original determinations on delay and prospect of success, and that there was no conflict with established jurisprudence.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant requested an adjournment of all summary hearings until the respondents paid for his prescription medication, alleging that the refusal to pay was a reprisal for filing a human rights application.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant had not established a basis for an adjournment, and directed that the hearings proceed as scheduled.