Sherry Liang

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code regarding a failure to award her a temporary position.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide contact information for her current employer and union, as her remedial request to be placed in the position could affect their interests.

When the applicant failed to provide this information, the Tribunal struck the remedial request.

The Tribunal also granted the former employer's unopposed request to intervene.

The applicant filed a human rights application on behalf of her daughter against the Ontario Nurses' Association, alleging discrimination and reprisal in its representation of her daughter following a termination.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to address delay and reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that allegations relating to events prior to June 2009 were out of time, as the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay.

The only timely allegation, regarding the union's refusal to assist in obtaining an employee health file, was dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success, as there was no evidence linking the refusal to a prohibited ground or establishing an intent to retaliate.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code due to a concurrent civil action.

The applicant argued that the Tribunal's findings might lead to the dismissal of her civil claim, leaving her without a remedy.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the potential impact on the civil claim did not constitute grounds for reconsideration under Rule 26.5, as section 34(11) is a strict jurisdictional bar.

Following a successful human rights application where the applicant was awarded monetary compensation and future compliance remedies, the applicant sought an order for legal costs on a full indemnity scale.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario reviewed its statutory authority under section 45.2 of the Human Rights Code and section 17.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Tribunal concluded that, consistent with prior jurisprudence and the absence of specific Tribunal rules regarding costs, it does not have the jurisdiction to award legal costs to a successful applicant.

The request for costs was denied.

The applicant requested an extension of time to file a Reply, confirmation of her representative, and an order for documentary disclosure.

The Tribunal granted the extension of time and confirmed the representative arrangements.

However, the Tribunal denied the request for documentary disclosure, finding that production was not necessary to enable the applicant to file a Reply and that such an order would be extraordinary at this stage of the proceedings.

The complainant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that upheld his human rights complaint but denied him a firefighter position and lost income due to his failure to disclose medical information during the hiring process.

The complainant argued the Tribunal failed to properly weigh the evidence.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding the complainant was merely attempting to re-argue his case and had not met any of the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 102.

The applicant requested an adjournment of summary hearings scheduled by conference call in two files due to unavailability.

The respondents opposed the request.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment based on the material filed and directed that alternative dates be scheduled.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring a response within 30 days, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant failed to respond.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

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

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

The applicant filed a human rights application against the Toronto Transit Commission.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code on the basis that another proceeding had appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to file a Reply addressing the request, warning that failure to do so could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond by the deadline.

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

The applicant filed an application alleging that police, social workers, medical experts, and the courts conspired to protect an individual who allegedly abused his son in 1994.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to explain how his own rights under the Human Rights Code were infringed.

The Tribunal noted it lacks jurisdiction over general allegations of unfairness or criminal cover-ups.

Furthermore, the allegations were out of time and the applicant provided no explanation for the delay.

The Queen's University Faculty Association (QUFA) requested to intervene in the application, which was granted as it has a significant interest in the outcome.

The Tribunal also addressed procedural issues, holding the applicant's request for an extension of time to file a Reply in abeyance pending comments from the other parties, advising the applicant that requests for documentary disclosure are generally premature at this stage, and directing the applicant to clarify whether she continues to be represented by her named representative.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in goods, services and facilities.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to take certain actions by a specified date, warning that failure to comply might be considered abandonment.

The applicant failed to respond.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment based on race by her employer and colleagues.

The respondents requested early dismissal under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, arguing the application was barred by a concurrent civil proceeding commenced by the applicant.

The Tribunal found that the civil claim, which sought damages for intentional infliction of mental suffering, defamation, and conspiracy, was based on the same factual allegations of discrimination and harassment as the human rights application.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the civil claim sought remedies for the infringement of Code rights, triggering the section 34(11) bar, and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application and requested it be deferred pending a union grievance.

The respondents confirmed the grievance regarding the applicant's 2007 termination had been withdrawn.

The Tribunal denied the request to defer as there was no ongoing proceeding.

The Tribunal also directed the parties to provide submissions on whether the application was timely under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, as the last alleged incident occurred in December 2010.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code alleging discrimination.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the completion of a related union grievance proceeding based on the same facts.

The Tribunal granted the request and deferred the application, noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority to decide human rights claims and that the orderly administration of justice favours deferral to the concurrent proceeding.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the ground of disability, along with a request for an interim remedy seeking reinstatement and compensation.

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

The Tribunal also noted that the applicant's one-year delay in filing the application weighed strongly against granting interim reinstatement.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in the investigation process of the Law Society of Upper Canada.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the application pending the completion of parallel disciplinary proceedings before the Law Society.

Finding that the disciplinary proceedings raised overlapping facts and issues, and that the Hearing Panel had already ruled on some of the human rights issues, the Tribunal deferred the application in the interests of the orderly administration of justice.

The applicant filed six related applications under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal directed that summary hearings be held separately for each application.

This interim decision sets out the schedule for the summary hearings to be held by conference call and provides directions for the filing of written submissions.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability after she was denied entry to certain areas of a Hindu temple with her service dog.

The application was filed past the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued the delay was due to her legal clinic's negligence.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation amounting to good faith for the delay, noting contradictory evidence regarding which respondent the clinic agreed to pursue.

The Tribunal also found the respondents would suffer substantial prejudice due to the delay.

The application was dismissed as untimely.