Sherry Liang

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking leave to amend their human rights application to include a $20,000 claim for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The respondent did not file a response.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting the nature of the amendments, the early stage of the proceedings, and the absence of apparent prejudice.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability in the provision of education services.

In a previous interim decision, the Tribunal ordered the applicant's next friend to consent to the respondent's use of the applicant's Ontario Student Record (OSR) for the proceeding.

The next friend refused to provide unconditional consent and requested a Tribunal-ordered inquiry to monitor the respondent's use of the OSR.

The Tribunal denied the request for an inquiry, finding it inapplicable.

The Tribunal scheduled a conference call to hear submissions on whether the application should be dismissed as an abuse of process due to the failure to provide the required consent.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability and sexual orientation, as well as reprisal, after his doctor terminated their physician-patient relationship.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant provided only speculation that the termination was based on discriminatory grounds or reprisal, while the respondent provided non-discriminatory reasons for the termination, including a breakdown of trust and the applicant's complex needs exceeding the doctor's skills.

The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The respondent school board requested an order allowing it to file an amended Response disclosing redacted portions of the applicant's Ontario Student Record (OSR) and directing the applicant's next friend to consent to the disclosure.

The applicant had alleged discrimination in education services but sought to restrict the respondent's use of the OSR.

The Tribunal held that it would be unfair for the applicant to rely on OSR material while preventing the respondent from using it to defend itself.

The Tribunal directed the applicant's next friend to consent to the use and disclosure of OSR documents from September 2007 to the date of the Application, failing which the Tribunal would consider dismissing the Application as an abuse of process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability against his former employer and union.

The application was filed more than three years after his termination and more than two years after his union withdrew his grievance.

The Tribunal found the application was filed beyond the one-year limitation period under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal also found that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, and therefore the delay was not incurred in good faith under section 34(2).

The application was dismissed as untimely.

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

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code or as an abuse of process, arguing that the substance of the application was dealt with in a prior grievance arbitration.

The applicant, who did not attend the arbitration, alleged he was not notified by his union and raised concerns about the union's representation.

The Tribunal ordered an in-person hearing to consider the request to dismiss and directed the applicant to provide an affidavit detailing his assertions regarding the fairness of the arbitration process.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, claiming the respondent employer failed to accommodate her disability-related needs following a workplace injury and engaged in reprisals.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the facts were part of an ongoing WSIB appeal.

Finding significant overlap in the facts and issues between the WSIB appeal and the human rights application, the Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application pending the conclusion of the WSIB appeal to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination related to his suspension from employment.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because the applicant's union had filed a grievance based on the same facts, which was proceeding to mediation.

The Tribunal applied its usual practice of deferring applications where a concurrent grievance proceeding deals with the same human rights issues, and ordered the application deferred pending the completion of the grievance process.

The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of an interim decision that deferred his human rights application pending the completion of a related grievance process.

The applicant's union also filed a Request to Intervene, which was granted.

The Tribunal held that a decision to defer is not a final decision and therefore cannot be the subject of a Request for Reconsideration.

Treating the request as one to re-activate the application, the Tribunal found no new circumstances to justify re-activation.

The application remains deferred pending the completion of the grievance process.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability after being laid off upon his return from an 18-month medical leave.

The employer argued the layoff was part of a genuine company-wide downsizing due to the loss of major clients.

The Tribunal found no direct discrimination, as the layoff was justified by economic circumstances.

While the employer's need for 'continuity' adversely affected the applicant due to his lengthy absence, the Tribunal held that accommodating him through a re-orientation period or displacing other employees would have caused undue hardship given the severe business downturn.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application that overlapped with a union grievance.

After the respondent provided evidence that the grievance had been settled and requested dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, the Tribunal directed the applicant to respond.

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

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

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss Application regarding the personal respondent, as the application failed to identify specific acts of discrimination committed by him.

After receiving the applicant's submissions, the Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the application against the personal respondent should be dismissed at this stage.

The Tribunal directed that the Notice of Application be issued.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application because two union grievances had been filed regarding the same subject matter.

The applicant submitted that the application should not be deferred because the union was withdrawing the grievances provided the Tribunal took jurisdiction.

The Tribunal agreed and ordered that the application not be deferred, conditional on the union confirming the withdrawal of the grievances.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the corporate and personal respondents.

One personal respondent, Sarah Jaikishun, failed to file a Response by the deadline.

The Tribunal directed the corporate respondent to deliver the Interim Decision to Ms. Jaikishun and granted her 14 days to file a Response and explain the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice to her under Rule 5.5.

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

A mediation was scheduled, but the applicant's representative's request to reschedule was denied.

Neither the applicant nor his representative attended the mediation.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to advise of his intentions, warning that failure to respond could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond, and the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The complainant, a student with autism spectrum disorder, alleged that the school board discriminated against him by failing to adequately accommodate his disability-related needs in a regular classroom setting.

The allegations included failure to provide a continuous and competent Special Needs Assistant, delay in providing a dedicated computer, inadequate toileting support, and excessive time spent outside the classroom.

The Tribunal found that the school board made reasonable efforts to accommodate the complainant's needs, including providing one-on-one support, implementing a habit-training program, and offering training to staff.

The Tribunal concluded that the accommodations provided were reasonable and responsive to the complainant's needs, and dismissed the complaint.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing, citing a need for legal assistance, the unavailability of a co-applicant, and difficulties communicating with other applicants in related cases.

The respondents opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, noting that the hearing date had been set on agreement months prior, the applicant's reasons were not extraordinary or unexpected, and it was in the interests of the parties to proceed expeditiously.

The applicant requested an adjournment of summary hearings in multiple applications pending the receipt of a claims file from the respondent insurance company.

The Tribunal denied the request and directed that the summary hearings proceed as previously scheduled.

The applicant requested that her human rights application proceed by correspondence because she had moved out of Ontario and her military duties prevented her from attending an in-person hearing.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the matter involved conversations between the parties and would require oral evidence and cross-examination to make findings of fact and credibility.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to either confirm her attendance at the scheduled hearing or provide alternative dates, failing which the application might be deemed abandoned.

The parties jointly requested that the application be held in abeyance pending a review by the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care of issues covered by the application.

The Tribunal granted the request and ordered the application held in abeyance until October 1, 2012, to allow time for the Minister to review and consider recommendations from the Health Professions Regulatory Advisory Council.