Andrew M. Diamond

The insured applied for statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer initiated a Preliminary Issue Hearing to dismiss the application due to the insured's failure to attend insurer examinations.

Prior to the hearing, the insured attended the examination, rendering the preliminary issue moot.

The insurer sought its expenses for preparing for the hearing.

The Arbitrator reserved the issue of expenses to the arbitrator seized of the substantive arbitration, noting that the delay in attending the examination may be relevant to the final disposition.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

At the scheduled arbitration hearing, the applicant failed to attend and her representative was not prepared to call evidence.

The insurer requested that the application be dismissed.

The arbitrator dismissed the application due to the applicant's unexplained absence.

The insurer was awarded $1,200 in expenses.

Following a preliminary issue hearing where it was determined the applicant was not involved in an accident, the insurer requested an expense hearing.

The arbitrator found the applicant's claim to be frivolous and vexatious due to adverse credibility findings.

The applicant was ordered to pay the insurer's expenses in the amount of $13,220.38.

The applicant sought to add claims for various statutory accident benefits to an ongoing arbitration three years after the mediator's report was issued.

The insurer argued the claims were barred by the two-year limitation period under the Insurance Act and the Schedule.

The arbitrator found that the applicant failed to commence arbitration within two years of the insurer's refusal to pay or within 90 days of receiving the mediator's report.

The request to add the claims was dismissed as time-barred.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of sex (pregnancy) after her employer terminated her medical benefits while she was on maternity leave.

The respondent business was experiencing financial difficulties and ultimately closed, but it terminated the applicant's benefits a month before the closure because she was on leave and not expected to return.

The Tribunal found this constituted discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant was awarded $1,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, with no special damages awarded due to lack of evidence.

The applicant, who is Kurdish, alleged that the respondents discriminated against him by terminating his employment after discovering his ethnic origin.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was not an employee but was on a one-day tryout, and the decision not to hire him was based on his performance compared to another candidate, not his ethnicity.

However, the Tribunal found that the individual respondent violated section 23(2) of the Human Rights Code by asking the applicant where he was from during the tryout, as this directly elicited information about his place of origin.

The respondents were ordered to pay $1,500 in general damages for injury to dignity and self-respect.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that her employer terminated her employment as a reprisal for a previous human rights application she had filed.

The respondent employer requested that the Tribunal dismiss the application as an abuse of process, arguing that the applicant had signed a full and final release when settling the previous application.

The Tribunal held that bringing an application under section 8 of the Human Rights Code for alleged acts of reprisal that occurred after the release was signed does not constitute an abuse of process, as individuals cannot contract out of their prospective human rights.

The respondent's request to dismiss the application was denied.

The applicant purchased return airline tickets to Pakistan from a travel agent.

While the applicant was abroad, the travel agent ceased operations without having purchased the return tickets.

The applicant had to purchase replacement tickets to return to Canada and subsequently filed a claim for compensation with the Travel Industry Council of Ontario (TICO).

TICO denied the claim because it was filed beyond the strict three-month limitation period set out in Ontario Regulation 26/05.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, holding that neither TICO nor the Tribunal has the discretionary power to extend the legislated timelines, despite the unfairness to the applicant who was travelling during the limitation period.

The applicant, a 61-year-old accountant, alleged age discrimination after being hired for a short-term project and let go after six weeks.

He claimed the respondent deliberately hired an older person, believing they would work harder during the probationary period.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and found no reasonable prospect of success, noting that being hired because of age does not constitute adverse treatment, and the applicant's own evidence showed the respondent had a history of high turnover in the position regardless of age.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application following a summary hearing.

The applicant argued there was new evidence and a conflict with established case law, but failed to provide details of the new evidence or identify any conflicting jurisprudence.

The Tribunal found no compelling or extraordinary circumstances to exercise its discretion to reconsider the decision.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that the loss of the vehicle would result in exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after the applicant's son was caught driving it while his licence was suspended for a Criminal Code conviction.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal and confirmed the impoundment, finding that the applicant and his family had access to an alternate vehicle (a BMW SUV) and other transportation options.

Under O. Reg. 631/98, the availability of an alternative to the impounded vehicle precludes a finding of exceptional hardship.

The applicant alleged that the respondents discriminated against him on the basis of disability (anxiety disorder) by failing to hire him after a job interview.

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

The Tribunal found no evidence that the respondents knew of the applicant's disability, and noted that the applicant's claim that he was offered the job at the end of the interview contradicted his assertion that he was denied employment due to poor interview performance caused by his disability.

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

The applicant alleged workplace discrimination against her employer, the corporate respondent, and her manager, the individual respondent.

The corporate respondent was placed into receivership under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The applicant sought an order to substitute the Receiver for the corporate respondent.

The Tribunal denied the request and stayed the application against the corporate respondent, finding that the applicant required, but had not obtained, leave of the Superior Court of Justice or the consent of the Receiver to proceed.

The application was permitted to continue against the individual respondent.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

After learning that the respondent was bankrupt, the Tribunal issued an interim decision requiring the applicant to provide evidence that the stay of proceedings under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act had been lifted, or to provide submissions on why the application should proceed.

The applicant failed to provide the required evidence or submissions within the specified time.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

The respondent subsequently made an assignment in bankruptcy.

The Tribunal considered whether the application was stayed under section 69.3(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The Tribunal concluded that the application is stayed and ordered the applicant to provide evidence that the stay has been lifted or written submissions on why she is entitled to continue, failing which the application may be dismissed.

The Tribunal previously issued an Interim Decision noting that the Ontario Human Rights Commission had not obtained the consent of the respondent's Monitor or leave of the Superior Court of Justice to refer the complaint.

The parties were directed to provide submissions as to why the complaint should not be dismissed.

No submissions were received, and the complaint was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability (alcoholism) after his employment was terminated for intoxicated and inappropriate conduct at a company holiday party.

The applicant claimed he had previously disclosed his alcoholism to a human resources representative when requesting benefit coverage for a prescription medication.

The respondent denied knowledge of the disability, asserting the representative believed the medication was for smoking cessation.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he had informed the employer of his alcoholism.

Because the employer did not know and could not reasonably have known of the disability, the duty to accommodate was not triggered, and the application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code after her employment was terminated.

Prior to her termination, the respondent had obtained an Initial Order under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) which stayed all proceedings against it.

The Tribunal found that the applicant commenced the application without obtaining the required written consent of the Monitor or leave of the Superior Court of Justice.

As the application was commenced in the face of a court-ordered stay, it was deemed void and dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision in which he was successful, challenging the finding that a decrease in business necessitated layoffs and the amount of monetary compensation awarded.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant was attempting to re-argue issues already fully canvassed and failed to establish any of the threshold criteria justifying reconsideration under the Tribunal's Rules.

The complainant filed a human rights complaint against his former employer, which was later referred to the Tribunal by the Commission.

Prior to the referral, the corporate respondent obtained protection under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA), which stayed all proceedings against it.

The corporate respondent subsequently made an assignment in bankruptcy.

The Tribunal found that the referral of the complaint appeared to violate the CCAA stay of proceedings, as there was no evidence that the consent of the Monitor or leave of the Court was obtained.

The Tribunal directed the parties to provide submissions on why the complaint should not be dismissed.