Marni Tolensky

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

Following a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to deliver and file hearing documents within 14 days, the applicant failed to comply.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had abandoned the application and dismissed it.

The applicant alleged age discrimination after he was not hired for a transit operator position with the respondent.

The respondent maintained that the applicant did not progress in the hiring process because he scored below the required cut-off on behavioural interview questions.

Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success as the applicant provided only speculative assertions and a 'gut feeling' to link the respondent's decision to his age.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability, claiming the respondents refused to accommodate her following knee replacement surgery.

The respondents requested an interim order for access to the applicant's occupational health and claims management file from 2007 to present to defend the application, citing potential conflicts between privacy legislation and occupational health duties.

The Tribunal found the documents arguably relevant but limited disclosure to records from December 2014 onwards, corresponding to the start of the applicant's medical leave.

The Tribunal also granted the respondents an extension of time to file submissions on whether the application should be deferred.

The respondent in a human rights application alleging failure to accommodate a disability requested an order for early access to the applicant's Occupational Health and Claims Management (OHCM) file prior to filing its Response.

The applicant opposed the request on privacy grounds.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding the medical documents were necessary for the respondent to meaningfully respond to the allegations.

The Tribunal limited access to the relevant time period and imposed strict confidentiality safeguards, while also ordering the respondent to provide a copy of the disclosed file to the applicant.

The respondent brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking production of the applicant's complete medical notes and records from his treating physicians and practitioners.

The applicant opposed the request, arguing that the respondent already had the necessary medical documents from his medical leave.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had placed his medical condition and restrictions at issue and ordered him to produce the requested medical documents, as they were arguably relevant to the issues raised in the Application.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates due to a family medical emergency involving its counsel.

The self-represented applicant opposed the request, suggesting the respondent retain another lawyer.

The Tribunal found that the family medical circumstances constituted exceptional circumstances warranting an adjournment.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent's counsel to advise by 4:00 p.m. whether she could attend, failing which an adjournment would be granted and a teleconference scheduled to address preliminary issues.

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

The respondent requested an order permitting it to access and disclose the applicant's personal health information from its Occupational Health and Claims Management file to prepare its Response, and an extension of time to file the Response.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting the applicant had placed his medical condition in issue and had not opposed the request.

The applicant filed a human rights application naming two organizational respondents and two unnamed individual respondents (Jane Doe and Jane Doe 2).

The applicant brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to compel the organizational respondents to disclose the names and contact information of the individual respondents.

The organizational respondents opposed the request, arguing the individuals were not properly named as respondents.

The Tribunal held that arguments regarding whether the individuals were proper respondents were premature and ordered the organizational respondents to provide the identities and contact information of the unnamed individuals.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability (PTSD) and a failure to accommodate.

The respondent employer brought a request for an order during proceedings seeking access to the applicant's Occupational Health and Claims Management file to prepare its response, citing potential conflicts between privacy legislation and occupational health duties.

The Tribunal found the medical records arguably relevant but narrowed the scope of production to records specifically concerning PTSD between September 2012 and June 2013.

The respondent was also granted a 35-day extension to file its response.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the applicant's human rights application because of an ongoing grievance arbitration proceeding based on the same facts and human rights issues.

The applicant opposed the deferral, arguing that arbitration could take years.

The Tribunal deferred the application, finding that it is the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed, as grievance arbitrators have the power and responsibility to enforce human rights statutes, and concurrent proceedings could lead to contrary findings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination, harassment, and reprisal on the basis of disability against her employer and a disability management specialist.

The respondents requested an interim order removing the individual respondent as a party and striking the reprisal allegation.

The Tribunal applied the Persaud factors and declined to remove the individual respondent, finding her alleged conduct was a central issue in the application.

The Tribunal also declined to strike the reprisal claim, as the applicant had pleaded facts that could potentially establish a breach of section 8 of the Code.

Both requests were dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his discrimination complaint against the Toronto Transit Commission for being out of time.

The Tribunal found the applicant knew of the alleged discriminatory acts by 1994, despite his claim of discovering them in 2010, and thus the delay was not in good faith.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no denial of natural justice in the Tribunal's use of a written hearing for a jurisdictional issue, and holding that the Tribunal's decisions on timeliness and reconsideration were reasonable.

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

A summary hearing was convened to determine whether the application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

At the start of the hearing, the applicant advised that he wished to withdraw the application.

The application was dismissed on consent.

The applicant, a black Canadian, alleged that a Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) bus operator discriminated against her on the basis of race and colour during three incidents involving the use of a transit transfer.

The applicant claimed she was unfairly singled out and questioned about her route, and that the operator later retaliated when the applicant took her picture for alleged racial profiling.

The Tribunal found that the applicant established a prima facie case of discrimination, but the respondent provided a rational, non-discriminatory explanation.

The operator was justified in questioning the applicant's destination because the applicant was not taking the most direct route as required by TTC transfer rules.

The Application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, claiming the respondent failed to accommodate her medical restrictions between May 2007 and October 2008.

The respondent brought a preliminary request to dismiss the application for delay, as it was filed in July 2010, well beyond the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued the delay was incurred in good faith because she was pursuing internal negotiations for compensation until August 2009.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's refusal to pay compensation in August 2009 was not a new incident of discrimination, and the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the subsequent 11-month delay in filing the application.

The application was dismissed for delay.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal based on disability regarding workplace accommodation.

He subsequently requested an interim remedy to require the employer to follow specific steps before alleging an employee is asleep on duty and to transfer a particular supervisor, fearing false allegations and potential dismissal under a new performance policy.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding the applicant failed to establish that the balance of convenience favoured the interim remedy or that it was necessary to ensure a complete and effective remedy, noting the request did not relate to the underlying application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that the respondents discriminated against him on the basis of age and disability by failing to install his proposed electronic bar invention to prevent subway platform falls.

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 establish a link between the alleged lack of safety features and his age or disability, and that the Code does not protect against hypothetical violations.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application more than one year after the last alleged incident of discrimination.

The Tribunal held a telephone conference to determine if the delay was incurred in good faith under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

Although the applicant provided medical evidence of severe depression and fibromyalgia, the Tribunal found that during the delay period he was able to retain legal counsel, file a WSIB claim, and engage in email correspondence with the respondent.

The Tribunal concluded the delay was not incurred in good faith and dismissed the application.