Olanyi Parsons

The respondents requested that the human rights application be dismissed as untimely, arguing that the specific allegations occurred more than one year before the application was filed.

The applicant clarified that the last instance of alleged sexual harassment occurred within the one-year period.

The Tribunal found that the incidents amounted to a series of incidents, the last of which occurred less than a year before the application was filed, and denied the request to dismiss.

The Tribunal also denied the applicant's request for early production of documents as premature, noting no exceptional circumstances justified departing from the standard disclosure process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment based on creed and disability, as well as a failure to accommodate.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed for delay, arguing it was filed outside the one-year statutory time limit.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's allegations of harassment and her subsequent attempts to obtain accommodation constituted a series of incidents.

Because the procedural aspect of the duty to accommodate was ongoing within one year of the application being filed, the Tribunal determined the application was timely and allowed it to proceed.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing date because her new counsel and she were unavailable.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the hearing date had been set based on previously provided availability and that retaining new counsel shortly before a hearing does not constitute an exceptional circumstance justifying an adjournment.

The applicant, former CEO of a company that provided Shariah-compliant mortgages, filed a human rights application against the respondent credit union following his company's receivership.

He alleged discrimination based on creed regarding the calculation of a mortgage discharge for his ex-spouse's home and the respondent's continued use of mortgage documents he had prepared.

The Tribunal dismissed the application at a preliminary hearing, finding that the applicant lacked standing, the allegations had no reasonable prospect of success, and the application was filed outside the one-year time limit without a good faith explanation for the delay.

The appellant appealed the motion judge's decision to strike her claim for negligent investigation on the basis that it was commenced beyond the two-year limitation period.

The appellant argued that the negligent investigation claim was interconnected with her breach of privacy claim, which the motion judge had allowed to proceed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the two claims protect different legal interests and are distinct.

The motion judge's costs award was also upheld.

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 plaintiff moved for summary judgment on its action for a debt owed under a share purchase agreement and to dismiss the defendant's counterclaim.

The defendant alleged unwritten collateral agreements and illegal conduct by the plaintiff but provided no evidence to support these claims.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, noting the defendant's allegations were bald and self-serving.

The court also found the defendant's counterclaim was statute-barred.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff for $289,000, and the counterclaim was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in the provision of services by the City of Markham, its Mayor, and two Councillors, after her hydro was disconnected.

Following a summary hearing to assess whether the application had a reasonable prospect of success, the Tribunal allowed amendments to add the City of Markham as a respondent.

The Tribunal dismissed the claims based on gender identity and marital status, as well as all claims against the Mayor and one Councillor, finding no evidence linking their alleged failure to intervene to the applicant's race.

The claim against the remaining Councillor was allowed to proceed due to a factual dispute over a comment allegedly made about the applicant's background.

The respondent requested to defer the human rights application pending the outcome of a reconsideration of an Ontario Ministry of Labour Order made under the Employment Standards Act.

The applicant opposed the deferral.

The Tribunal found that the subject matter of the ESA proceeding was virtually identical to the human rights application, involving allegations of reprisal related to pregnancy leave.

To avoid adjudicative duplication and the potential for inconsistent findings, the Tribunal granted the request and deferred the application pending the conclusion of the ESA proceeding.