Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to confirm intention to appear.
The applicant failed to respond to a Case Assessment Direction requiring her to confirm her intention to appear at the scheduled hearing.
Having received no confirmation or communication from the applicant, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned and canceled the scheduled hearing.
Request to amend application to add reprisal allegation granted, subject to evidentiary threshold under CFSA.
The applicant requested to amend their human rights application to add an allegation of reprisal, claiming the respondent school board made a report to the Children's Aid Society in retaliation for the application.
The respondent opposed the amendment, arguing it was untimely and barred by the Child and Family Services Act (CFSA).
The Tribunal granted the request to amend, finding it more efficient to deal with the issue in the current proceeding and that the CFSA does not automatically bar such allegations.
However, the Tribunal directed the applicant to explain what evidence would be available to prove the report was made maliciously or without reasonable grounds, given the high threshold established by the CFSA.
Human rights application deferred pending WSIB decision on whether termination was due to workplace injury.
The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming he was terminated due to a work-related injury rather than performance issues.
The respondent requested that the application be deferred because a proceeding at the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) was dealing with the same substance.
The Tribunal found that the primary issue at the WSIB—whether the termination was related to the injury or performance—was the same as the substance of the human rights application.
Consequently, the Tribunal deferred the application pending a final decision from the WSIB.
Employer breached settlement agreement by providing a neutral rather than positive reference letter; $1,000 awarded.
The applicant alleged that the respondent contravened a settlement agreement by failing to provide a positive letter of reference as required by the Minutes of Settlement.
The Tribunal found that the letter provided by the respondent was neutral rather than positive, and therefore breached the agreement.
The Tribunal ordered the respondent to provide a positive letter of reference and awarded the applicant $1,000 in monetary compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect resulting from the breach.
The Tribunal also granted the applicant's request to anonymize the decision to preserve the confidentiality intended by the original settlement.
Request for reconsideration of decision dismissing discrimination claim against WSIB denied.
The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his claim of discrimination against the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB).
The applicant alleged he was misled by a WSIB Claims Manager about the impact of a temporary withdrawal from a Work Transition program for non-compensable surgery.
The Tribunal found no evidence that the misinformation was provided for discriminatory reasons.
The applicant argued the Tribunal failed to address constructive discrimination under section 11 of the Human Rights Code and the duty to accommodate under section 17.
The Tribunal held that the issue was not a discriminatory policy but alleged misinformation, and denied the request for reconsideration as the criteria under Rule 26 were not met.
Request to dismiss human rights application denied because WSIB decision on the same issue was under appeal.
The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming his employment was terminated after he reported a work-related injury.
The respondent requested the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) had already dealt with the substance of the application by denying the applicant's claim for benefits.
The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss, noting the applicant had filed an objection to the WSIB decision, meaning it was not a final decision.
The Tribunal directed the parties to advise if they wished to participate in mediation or make submissions on deferring the application pending the WSIB appeal.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to confirm hearing attendance.
The applicant failed to respond to a Case Assessment Direction requiring him to confirm his attendance at a scheduled hearing.
As the Tribunal received no communication from the applicant by the specified deadline, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.
Applicant ordered to consent to disclosure of Ontario Student Record to allow school board to prepare Response.
The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination with respect to education because of disability.
The respondent school board requested an order directing the applicant to consent to the disclosure of his Ontario Student Record (OSR) so that it could prepare its Response.
The applicant objected, arguing that disclosure at the pleading stage was premature and that respondent's counsel should not have access.
The Tribunal held that the OSR is essential to understanding the accommodation issues raised and that there is no principled reason to withhold consent at the Response stage.
The applicant was ordered to provide consent or face potential dismissal of the Application as an abuse of process.
Reconsideration of interim decision dismissing application against Crown based on prosecutorial immunity denied.
The applicant requested a reconsideration of an interim decision that dismissed his application against the Crown based on prosecutorial immunity.
The applicant argued that the Crown Attorney perverted the course of justice due to a 'cover-up' of a police video.
The Tribunal found that the applicant's disagreement with the finding was not a basis for reconsideration under Rule 26, as the Crown Attorney's involvement was brief and concluded with dropping the charges.
The request for reconsideration was denied.
Human rights application re-activated due to excessive delay in related WSIB proceedings.
The applicant sought to re-activate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the outcome of related proceedings at the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB).
The respondents opposed the re-activation.
The Tribunal noted that the applicant's appeal to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) was not expected to be heard until at least June 2017, resulting in excessive delay.
Given the passage of time since the 2011 events and the uncertainty that the WSIAT would address the substance of the human rights allegations, the Tribunal granted the request and ordered the application re-activated.
Reconsideration request denied where applicant asserted having new evidence but failed to disclose its substance.
The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application following a summary hearing.
She argued that she had evidence of direct discrimination by the respondents, a vocational association, which she was unable to provide earlier due to a medical condition.
The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant's mere assertion that evidence would be available, without disclosing what the evidence actually was, did not meet the requirements for reconsideration under the Tribunal's Rules.
Tribunal dismisses claims against judges due to judicial immunity but allows claims against court staff.
The applicant alleged discrimination with respect to services by judges and court staff.
The Tribunal dismissed the allegations concerning decisions made by judges, finding it lacked jurisdiction due to the doctrine of judicial immunity.
The Tribunal also denied a request to add an additional personal respondent because the alleged incident occurred more than one year before the application was filed and no good faith explanation for the delay was provided.
The Tribunal ordered a hearing to proceed solely on the allegations that court staff used racial slurs and exhibited racist attitudes towards the applicant.
Human rights application against Purolator dismissed for lack of provincial jurisdiction.
The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment against Purolator Inc. and Nicole Francis.
The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that Purolator Inc. is a federally regulated business.
After receiving submissions from the applicant, the Tribunal confirmed that Purolator's labour relations are governed by the Canada Labour Code and dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.
Request for reconsideration denied as applicant failed to establish procedural prejudice or material factual errors.
The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed her allegations of discrimination due to delay and only allowed her reprisal allegations to proceed.
The applicant argued that procedural issues, such as delayed disclosure of documents and witness statements, and factual errors in the decision warranted reconsideration.
The Tribunal found that the applicant did not establish any actual prejudice from the delayed disclosure and that the alleged factual errors were not material to the outcome.
In-person hearing ordered to resolve ambiguity and bad faith allegations in settlement contravention dispute.
The applicant filed a Contravention of Settlement Application alleging the respondent failed to reimburse him for expenses related to psychiatric treatments as agreed in their Minutes of Settlement.
The respondent argued the increased frequency of visits demonstrated bad faith and that the treatments were not necessary for the compensable injury.
Finding ambiguity in the Minutes and noting the bad faith allegations, the Tribunal ordered an in-person hearing to hear extrinsic evidence regarding the circumstances surrounding the agreement.
Application against Crown dismissed due to prosecutorial immunity; summary hearing ordered for remaining police respondents.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sex discrimination and reprisal against the police, the OIPRD, and the Crown.
The Tribunal dismissed the application against the Crown on the basis of prosecutorial immunity, finding no evidence of malicious intent or abuse of process by the Crown Attorney who withdrew the applicant's charges.
For the remaining respondents, the Tribunal scheduled a summary hearing to determine whether the allegations have a reasonable prospect of success and whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to review the OIPRD's decisions.
Human rights application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as no Code-protected ground was alleged.
The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination and harassment with respect to housing contrary to the Human Rights Code.
The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction seeking clarification on how the allegations related to the Code.
The applicant's concerns regarding his former residence had already been dismissed in a previous application.
His allegations regarding his current living arrangements did not include any claim of discrimination based on a Code-protected ground.
The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.
Reconsideration of dismissal for delay denied as evidence did not support claim of incorrect legal advice.
The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision dismissing her human rights application for delay.
She argued that she relied on incorrect advice from the Human Rights Legal Support Centre regarding the deadline to file.
The Tribunal reviewed the intake notes from the Centre and found no evidence that she was given specific advice about a time limit.
The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's misunderstanding of the deadline did not provide a good faith explanation for the delay and denied the request for reconsideration.
Reconsideration request denied; disagreement with damages award and factual findings does not establish bias.
The applicant requested reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that found he was discriminated against when a mall security guard detained him because of his service dog.
The applicant raised numerous complaints about the hearing process, factual findings, the $1,000 damages award, and alleged bias by the adjudicator.
The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant was attempting to re-argue his case and that his disagreement with the decision did not establish a reasonable apprehension of bias or meet the threshold criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.
Human rights application dismissed as out of time; ignorance of filing rights does not excuse delay.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to health care services by the respondent hospital.
The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application was filed more than one year after the events in question.
The applicant argued that the continuing effects of the hospital's actions extended the limitation period and that he was unaware he could file an application.
The Tribunal found that continuing consequences do not constitute new incidents of discrimination and that ignorance of the right to file is not a good faith explanation for delay.
The application was dismissed as out of time under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.