Yasmeena Mohamed

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination based on disability after being denied a day replacement position.

The applicant also filed a grievance with his union regarding the same issue, which was referred to arbitration.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the conclusion of the arbitration.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the facts and issues in both proceedings were identical and that proceeding simultaneously would create a substantial risk of inconsistent findings.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination by the Toronto Police Services Board.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting that the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction because it was filed more than one year after the alleged incident and lacked facts demonstrating good faith for the delay.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice by the specified deadline.

As a result, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination against Westjet Airlines.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the respondent appeared to be a federally-regulated employer, placing the matter outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

Despite being granted three extensions, the applicant failed to file submissions in response.

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

The applicant alleged that the respondent discriminated against her daughter on the basis of disability, creed, and marital status by including her spouse's income and assets in the calculation of her ODSP benefits after she married, which resulted in the suspension of her benefits.

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

The Tribunal determined it lacked jurisdiction to review the correctness of the ODSP's categorization of the daughter's dependency status prior to marriage, and followed previous jurisprudence establishing that the ODSP's treatment of spousal income does not constitute discrimination on the basis of marital status or creed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability regarding the WSIB's handling of his labour market re-entry plan and loss of earnings benefits.

The applicant had previously appealed the WSIB's decisions to the WSIAT, which found in his favour and awarded him benefits reflecting a more suitable occupation.

The respondents requested that the human rights application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the WSIAT proceeding appropriately dealt with the substance of the application, despite the WSIAT lacking jurisdiction to award damages for injury to dignity.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint against McMaster University, Mohawk College, and nine individual employees, alleging discrimination based on family and marital status.

The corporate respondents requested the removal of the nine personal respondents from the proceeding.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the corporate respondents accepted vicarious liability for the actions of their employees, were capable of remedying any alleged wrongdoing, and there was no compelling reason to keep the individuals as personal respondents.

The respondent requested an adjournment, production of documents, and an extension of time to file documents and witness statements ahead of a scheduled hearing.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, finding no extraordinary circumstances to justify it.

The production request was deferred to be addressed at the outset of the hearing.

The Tribunal granted a brief extension of time for the respondent to file its documents and witness statements.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, family status, and reprisal.

The respondents failed to file a response despite receiving a Notice of Application and a subsequent warning letter from the Tribunal.

Pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal deemed the respondents 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 the next steps for the applicant.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee on the basis of place of origin, disability, and family status during a guardianship application process.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to point to any evidence linking the alleged unfair treatment, such as delays and requests for specialized identification documents, to a prohibited ground of discrimination.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability and reprisal against his employer, the WSIB, his union (ATU), and a union representative.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss regarding the WSIB, ATU, and the union representative, as the narrative failed to connect their actions to any prohibited grounds under the Code.

The applicant did not file submissions in response.

The Tribunal found it plain and obvious that it lacked jurisdiction over these respondents, as the allegations against the WSIB did not engage the Code, and the union's alleged failure to pursue a grievance was not tied to discriminatory factors.

The application was dismissed against the WSIB, ATU, and the union representative.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on record of offences, claiming he received a harsher disciplinary penalty (termination) than a colleague.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application was filed more than 18 months after the termination.

The applicant argued the delay was due to attempts to settle the matter through other means.

The Tribunal found this did not constitute a good faith reason for delay and dismissed the application as untimely.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on race, citizenship, and ethnic origin regarding her 2012 arrest and the respondent's subsequent refusal to destroy her police records.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations regarding the 2012 arrest as untimely, finding no good faith explanation for the four-and-a-half-year delay.

The Tribunal also dismissed the allegations regarding the refusal to destroy records and border crossing difficulties, finding no reasonable prospect of success as there was no evidence linking the respondent's actions to the protected Code grounds.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment.

The Tribunal previously deferred the application pending the completion of another proceeding.

The Tribunal subsequently sent a Deferred Application-Advice of Status letter directing the applicant to advise on the status of the other proceeding.

The applicant failed to respond within the required timeframe.

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

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in membership in a vocational association on the basis of disability.

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

The applicant failed to respond to the NOID within the required timeframe.

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

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in membership in a vocational association on the basis of disability and reprisal.

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 within the directed timeframe.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on sex, sexual harassment, and pregnancy.

The Tribunal previously deferred the application pending the conclusion of a related Small Claims Court proceeding.

Following the conclusion of the Small Claims Court proceeding, the applicant requested reactivation of the application.

The Tribunal granted the request to reactivate but directed that a preliminary hearing be scheduled to determine whether the application should be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code on the basis that the Small Claims Court proceeding appropriately dealt with its substance.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race, ancestry, and place of origin after being denied a Chemical Engineer position.

The successful candidate for the position filed a Request to Intervene, arguing the Tribunal's decision could directly affect his employment status.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding it appropriate to grant intervenor status given the potential effect of the proceeding on the incumbent employee.

The respondent requested a 30-day adjournment of a scheduled hearing, alleging that his vehicle was vandalized and his documents were stolen.

The applicant opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding that the respondent failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances as required by the Tribunal's Practice Direction.

The Tribunal noted that the respondent delayed reporting the alleged theft for six weeks and failed to provide any evidence or explanation for the delay.

The hearing was ordered to proceed as scheduled, with directions for the respondent to file required materials.

The applicant alleged that his termination from employment was discriminatory on the basis of family status.

He claimed he was fired after inquiring about the employer's sick leave policy regarding children and being referred to as a 'skater dad'.

The Tribunal found that the termination was due to a culmination of factors, primarily poor work performance.

The Tribunal held that inquiring about a sick leave policy and being called a 'skater dad' do not fall within the protected ground of family status under the Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a self-represented former restaurant hostess, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, and ethnic origin.

She claimed she was denied a promotion to a server position, had her hours reduced, and received a poor performance review because she is Black.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide any evidence or particulars linking the respondent's conduct to her race or ethnic origin.

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