Yasmeena Mohamed

The applicant alleged discrimination with respect to contracts and employment because of creed, reprisal, and threat of reprisal, claiming she was prevented from participating in a Consultation Committee meeting after her employment with the respondent First Nation was terminated.

The Tribunal directed a summary hearing to determine if the matter fell within its jurisdiction.

Applying the functional test from NIL/TU,O, the Tribunal found that the nature, operations, and habitual activities of the Committee and the First Nation relate to First Nations governance, which falls squarely within exclusive federal jurisdiction over 'Indians and lands reserved for the Indians'.

The Application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant alleged discrimination and reprisal after being removed from the Board of Directors of a health services organization by the respondent First Nation.

The respondents brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal applied the functional test for federal undertakings and found that the First Nation's decision to appoint and remove the applicant from the board fell within its governance function over its members.

The Tribunal concluded that the matter fell within exclusive federal jurisdiction under section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867, and dismissed the application.

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

After the Tribunal requested an update on the status of the grievance proceedings and warned that failure to respond might result in dismissal, the applicant failed to respond.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability.

The Tribunal had previously deferred the application pending an Employment Standards Act (ESA) proceeding.

After an ESA decision was issued, the Tribunal reactivated the application and scheduled a preliminary hearing.

The respondents then appealed the ESA decision to the Ontario Labour Relations Board and requested that the Tribunal cancel the preliminary hearing and defer the application again.

The Tribunal found that the underlying issues in both proceedings were essentially the same and that proceeding with a preliminary hearing would be premature while the ESA appeal was ongoing.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the ESA proceeding and cancelled the preliminary hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging workplace discrimination, harassment, and reprisal based on creed.

She also filed a union grievance based on the same factual matrix, which was referred to arbitration.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the conclusion of the grievance arbitration.

The applicant opposed the deferral, while the respondent agreed.

The Tribunal found that the facts and issues in both proceedings were identical, posing a substantial risk of inconsistent findings.

The application was deferred pending the conclusion of the grievance arbitration.

The applicant, a registered nurse with a visible disability, alleged that the respondent discriminated against her by denying her a position in the Post Anaesthetic Care Unit due to a negative performance reference and her disability.

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

The Tribunal found that even if the applicant's allegations of unfairness and a negative reference were true, she failed to point to any evidence connecting the respondent's decision to her disability.

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

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

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide an update on the grievance within 90 days.

When the applicant failed to respond, the Tribunal issued an interim decision warning that the application will be dismissed as abandoned unless the update is provided by a specified final deadline.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend his human rights application by adding C&W Services as a respondent and adding services and contracts as a social area.

The Tribunal applied the Smyth test and found it appropriate to add C&W Services, as the conduct of its employee was central to the allegations of failure to accommodate.

The Tribunal also granted the request to add the social area of goods, services and facilities, but denied the request to add contracts as there was no contractual relationship between the applicant and C&W Services.

The applicant, a tenant with a scent sensitivity disability, filed a human rights application alleging the respondent landlord failed to accommodate her by using scented cleaning products.

The respondent requested dismissal under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter was already decided by the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB).

The Tribunal found the LTB had appropriately dealt with the substance of the allegations up to and including a specific garbage chute incident, and dismissed those parts of the application.

However, the Tribunal granted the applicant's request to amend her application to include new allegations of discrimination that occurred after the LTB hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and receipt of public assistance after the respondents sought to recover an overpayment of ODSP benefits she received while residing in British Columbia.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to point to any evidence linking the respondents' decision to enforce the overpayment to a protected ground under the Code, and noting that disputes over ODSP benefit administration fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Social Benefits Tribunal.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex, sexual harassment, and sexual solicitation.

The respondent failed to file a Response despite being granted an extension and receiving a subsequent warning letter from the Tribunal.

Pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal deemed the respondent to have accepted all allegations in the application and waived all rights to further notice or participation in the proceedings.

A case management conference call was scheduled to determine next steps.

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

A preliminary/summary hearing was scheduled by teleconference.

The applicant failed to call in or provide any explanation for his absence.

The respondent and proposed respondents requested the application be dismissed as abandoned.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned due to the applicant's failure to attend.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming she was terminated after requesting accommodation for ADHD.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed on a preliminary basis, arguing the matter was already dealt with by an Employment Standards Officer (ESO) who found the applicant was terminated for wilful misconduct.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss, finding that the ESO specifically declined to consider the disability-related allegations as they were outside the scope of the Employment Standards Act.

The Tribunal also declined to dismiss the application as having no reasonable prospect of success, noting a full hearing was required.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in services, which was deferred pending the outcome of related provincial offences proceedings.

The applicant filed a request to reactivate the application seven months after the conclusion of the provincial proceedings, well beyond the 60-day time limit prescribed by Rule 14.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's explanation for the delay—that he was dealing with personal issues and simply forgot—did not constitute a good faith reason to extend the time limit.

The request to reactivate was denied and the application was dismissed.

The respondent in a human rights application brought a request for an order during proceedings seeking particulars of the applicant's allegations of disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and harassment.

The applicant did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the particulars were reasonably required for the respondent to understand the allegations and file a response.

The applicant was ordered to provide the requested particulars within 14 days.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination based on disability, which was deferred pending an Employment Standards Act (ESA) proceeding.

Following the conclusion of the ESA proceeding, the applicant requested to reactivate the application.

The Tribunal granted the request to reactivate as it was unopposed.

However, noting that the ESA proceeding may have appropriately dealt with the substance of the application, the Tribunal directed that a preliminary hearing be scheduled to determine whether the application should be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant sought to amend his human rights application to add disability as a ground of discrimination, alleging he was terminated without cause after suffering a workplace injury and filing a WSIB claim.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the proposed amendment was connected to the original allegations and that the respondent would suffer no prejudice given the early stage of the proceeding.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision dismissing her application against the Toronto Police Service.

She sought to introduce an investigation report and argued that her paralegal provided poor representation.

The Tribunal found the investigation report inadmissible under section 83(8) of the Police Services Act.

The Tribunal also held that the applicant's dissatisfaction with her legal representation did not constitute new, determinative facts that could not have been obtained earlier.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding requested an interim remedy to resume her studies, an adjournment of the upcoming hearing, and an extension of time to file disclosure documents.

The Tribunal deferred the interim remedy request to the outset of the hearing, denied the adjournment request as no exceptional circumstances were shown, and granted a short extension of time for the applicant and one respondent to complete their disclosure obligations.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to services because of disability, claiming that between 2001 and 2005, his high school teachers dissuaded him from pursuing a career in filmmaking.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application was filed more than 12 years after the last alleged incident.

The applicant attributed the delay to technological errors and his disabilities, but provided no medical documentation.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, concluding it was not incurred in good faith.

The application was dismissed as untimely.