Alan G. Smith

The respondents requested an order to defer the human rights application pending the conclusion of a related criminal proceeding involving one of the personal respondents.

The applicant opposed the deferral, arguing the issues and available remedies were different and that deferral would cause unnecessary delay.

The Tribunal granted the deferral to avoid adjudicative duplication and the possibility of inconsistent findings of fact, noting that the criminal proceeding involved the same incident and that the personal respondent's rights in the criminal matter must be considered.

The respondents requested an order to defer the human rights application pending the outcome of an ongoing workplace grievance-arbitration process.

The applicant opposed the deferral due to delays and an impending workplace closure.

The Tribunal found that the grievances were virtually identical to the subject matter of the application and deferred the application to avoid adjudicative duplication.

The allegation of discrimination based on 'record of offences' was struck on consent.

The applicant filed a human rights application against his employer.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the outcome of an ongoing workplace grievance-arbitration process dealing with the same issues.

The respondent supported deferral, while the applicant opposed it due to concerns about delay.

The Tribunal deferred the application, noting that grievance arbitrators have the power and responsibility to enforce human rights obligations, and that deferral avoids adjudicative duplication and the risk of inconsistent decisions.

The applicant requested to defer her human rights application pending the outcome of her claims before the WSIB and the Ministry of Labour under the Employment Standards Act.

The respondent took no position.

The Tribunal found that the issues in the concurrent proceedings, particularly regarding the applicant's disability and loss of employment income, substantially overlapped with the human rights application.

To avoid adjudicative duplication and the risk of inconsistent findings, the Tribunal granted the request and deferred the application.

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

The respondents were granted an extension of time to file a Response but failed to do so by the extended deadline.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondents that failure to participate could lead to the application proceeding without them and orders being made in their absence.

The respondents were given a final opportunity to file a Response by March 14, 2011, along with an explanation for the delay.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code but failed to attend a scheduled mediation.

After the applicant failed to respond to a Registrar's direction inquiring about her intentions, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The respondents requested an order to defer the human rights application pending the completion of a related criminal proceeding against one of the personal respondents.

The applicant opposed the deferral due to concerns about delay.

The Tribunal granted the deferral to avoid adjudicative duplication and the possibility of inconsistent decisions, noting that the criminal charges related to an incident forming a substantial part of the application.

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.

The respondent requested to defer the human rights application pending the outcome of an ongoing workplace grievance-arbitration process.

The applicant opposed the deferral due to concerns about delay.

The Tribunal found that the grievance was virtually identical to the subject matter of the application and that deferral was appropriate to avoid adjudicative duplication.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application against his former employer, a moving and delivery business.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed on the basis that it is a federally regulated business.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss and received written submissions.

The Tribunal found that the respondent operates an inter-provincial and international moving business, placing it under federal jurisdiction pursuant to s. 92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act.

As the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over federally regulated employers, the application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application while concurrently pursuing a workplace grievance-arbitration process based on the same facts.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application to avoid adjudicative duplication.

The applicant opposed deferral, citing concerns about the remedies available at arbitration and potential delays.

The Tribunal deferred the application, noting that grievance arbitrators have the power and responsibility to enforce human rights obligations, and that delay is not a sufficient reason to proceed with concurrent applications.

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

After failing to appear for a scheduled mediation and failing to respond to the Registrar's subsequent correspondence regarding her intentions, the applicant was deemed to have abandoned the application.

The application was dismissed.

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

Despite agreeing to mediation, the applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's request for mediation dates.

The Registrar subsequently directed the applicant to advise the Tribunal of his intentions, warning that failure to respond within 10 days would result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant did not respond.

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

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment based on 'superior bullying'.

After verbally indicating a desire to withdraw the application, the applicant failed to provide written confirmation or respond to the Tribunal's subsequent correspondence directing him to advise of his intentions.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application but subsequently failed to maintain current contact information with the Tribunal.

After correspondence sent by mail and email was returned or went unanswered, the Tribunal warned the applicant that failure to respond would result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant did not respond, and the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

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

After failing to attend a scheduled mediation and failing to respond to a Registrar's direction regarding her intentions, the applicant was deemed to have abandoned the application.

The application was dismissed.

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

The application was previously deferred pending the conclusion of a related grievance arbitration.

The Tribunal subsequently directed the applicant to advise of his intentions regarding the application, warning that failure to respond within 30 days would result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant did not respond.

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

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

The Tribunal later directed the applicant to advise of her intentions regarding the application, warning that failure to respond within 30 days would result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond to the correspondence.

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

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

After failing to attend a scheduled mediation, the Tribunal directed the applicant to advise of her intentions regarding the application.

The applicant failed to respond to multiple communications from the Tribunal.

Consequently, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment by her former supervisor during 2001-2002.

The corporate respondent requested the application be dismissed because the applicant had previously filed a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission in 2002 based on the same facts, which the Commission declined to deal with due to an ongoing grievance arbitration.

The Tribunal found that the subject-matter of the application was the same as the prior complaint and dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction under section 53(8) of the Human Rights Code.