Marnie Corbold

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of age, sex, and gender expression after being dismissed from the Correctional Officer Training and Assessment program.

The Tribunal directed a summary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's allegations, if proven, could result in a finding of a Code infringement and were sufficiently plausible to proceed.

The application was allowed to continue in the Tribunal's process.

The applicant, a police officer, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race, sex, and disability.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application was timely.

The Tribunal found that the allegations within the one-year limitation period had no reasonable prospect of success, and therefore the earlier incidents were not part of a series of incidents.

The Tribunal also found that the applicant's severe depression did not constitute a good faith explanation for the delay, as he was represented by counsel in related matters and could have sought advice.

The application was dismissed as untimely.

The applicant requested to re-activate her deferred human rights application after the conclusion of another legal proceeding.

The request was filed past the 60-day time limit set out in the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondents opposed the re-activation due to the delay.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's representative, a counsellor with no legal training, provided a reasonable explanation for the short delay.

Finding no significant prejudice to the respondents, the Tribunal granted the request to re-activate the application and directed the remaining respondents to file their responses.

The applicant consented to dismiss the human rights application against the respondent union, the Association de la police de l'Ontario.

As no parties objected, the Tribunal dismissed the application against the union and amended the style of cause accordingly.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend his human rights application against a correctional facility.

The respondent objected, arguing the amendments were unnecessary or insufficiently particularized.

The Tribunal allowed the amendments regarding dietary issues to the extent they clarified the allegations.

The Tribunal also allowed the amendment regarding alleged racial taunts, subject to the inclusion of specific particulars provided by the applicant in earlier submissions to clarify the scope of the allegation.

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

The parties subsequently entered into a Memorandum of Settlement resolving related workplace grievances, which included a full and final release and an explicit agreement to withdraw the human rights application.

The applicant argued he signed the settlement due to difficulties travelling for the grievance proceedings and that not all issues were resolved.

The Tribunal applied the Pritchard factors and found no evidence of duress, lack of understanding, or inadequate consideration.

The Tribunal concluded that allowing the application to proceed in the face of the clear release would amount to an abuse of process and dismissed the application.

The applicant, a former police constable, filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex, claiming the respondent imposed conditions that disadvantaged her compared to men and led to her resignation.

A summary hearing was held to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant provided no evidence or particulars to support her belief that her sex was a factor in the respondent's treatment of her.

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

The respondent requested reconsideration of an interim decision that refused to dismiss the human rights application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The union, OPSEU, sought intervenor status and supported the reconsideration request.

The Tribunal granted OPSEU intervenor status but denied the reconsideration request.

The Tribunal held that the interim decision was not a 'final decision' subject to reconsideration under its Rules, as it did not dispose of a central issue.

Furthermore, the Tribunal declined to reconsider the decision on its own motion, finding no compelling or extraordinary circumstances to outweigh the public interest in finality.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination at a detention centre, which was deferred pending the conclusion of related criminal proceedings.

The applicant later requested to reactivate the application, which the respondent opposed as untimely, arguing the specific charges related to the incident had concluded earlier.

The Tribunal found the request to reactivate was timely because the initial deferral order was broad enough to encompass other ongoing criminal proceedings.

The Tribunal also noted it would have exercised its discretion to reactivate regardless, given the reasonable explanation for delay and the respondent's failure to raise the issue earlier.

The application was reactivated.

The respondent requested an order to defer the human rights application pending the resolution of a concurrent grievance proceeding.

The applicant opposed the deferral due to concerns about delay.

The Tribunal found that the grievance raised the same issues as the application and that the grievance arbitrator had jurisdiction to deal with the human rights issues.

To avoid concurrent proceedings, the Tribunal granted the request and deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process.

The respondent brought a preliminary request to dismiss the applicant's human rights application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of her gender discrimination complaint had already been dealt with in a prior grievance mediation-arbitration process.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the Vice-Chair's brief reasons in the grievance process did not specify whether the discrimination allegations were considered.

Applying the Supreme Court's guidance in Penner, the Tribunal concluded it would be unfair to use the results of the prior proceeding to preclude the human rights claim.

The respondents requested that the human rights applications be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code on the basis that the applicants' prior public complaints under the Police Services Act appropriately dealt with the substance of the applications.

The Tribunal considered the Supreme Court of Canada's decisions in Figliola and Penner.

The Tribunal held that section 45.1 should not be interpreted to bar a Code application where doing so would result in an affront to basic principles of fairness.

Given the lack of personal remedies in the police disciplinary process and the broader policy implications, the Tribunal found it would be unfair to preclude the applicants from pursuing their human rights claims.

The respondents' requests to dismiss the applications were denied, and the applications were allowed to proceed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability and reprisal by her employer.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed as untimely, as the alleged failure to accommodate occurred in 2008-2009, while the termination letter was sent in April 2011.

The Tribunal found the incidents did not constitute a series of incidents due to a gap of more than one year.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to prove her delay was incurred in good faith due to psychological difficulties.

The 2008-2009 allegations were dismissed, leaving only the April 2011 termination allegation to proceed.

The Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services requested an adjournment of a hearing scheduled for October 11 and 12, 2012, after being added as a respondent to a human rights application less than three months prior.

The applicant opposed the adjournment.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that the short timeframe did not afford the Ministry an adequate opportunity to prepare, file its response, and allow the applicant to file a reply.

The Tribunal also directed the parties to mediation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging racial and creed profiling by the respondent while he was in the East Detention Centre.

The applicant also filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to defer the application until the end of related criminal proceedings against him.

The respondent took no position on the request.

The Tribunal granted the request and deferred the application, noting that deferral ensures proceedings dealing with the same issues do not run concurrently.

The applicant filed human rights applications alleging discrimination based on disability and record of offences regarding his treatment at the Toronto Jail.

He subsequently commenced a civil action against the respondent Ministry seeking damages for negligence and Charter breaches based on the same factual allegations of failure to accommodate his disability.

The Tribunal held that the applications were barred by section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, as the applicant was effectively claiming the equivalent of damages under section 46.1 of the Code in his civil action.

The applications were dismissed to prevent duplicate proceedings.

The Board of Inquiry reconvened to address outstanding issues regarding the implementation of its previous orders concerning workplace harassment and discrimination.

The complainant alleged further acts of reprisal and a continued poisoned environment.

The Board ruled that compensation must include a gross-up for income tax purposes to satisfy the principle of restitutio in integrum.

Furthermore, the Board determined it retained jurisdiction to hear evidence of continued discrimination and reprisals related to the implementation of its orders, distinguishing its remedial role from disciplinary proceedings.