Bruce Best

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) on the basis that the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the NOID within the directed timeframe.

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

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant was directed to respond but failed to do so by the deadline.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application based on facts that were also the subject of an ongoing union grievance.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the outcome of the grievance.

The applicant objected to the deferral, arguing the grievance process could take years and might result in a settlement that does not protect him from future discrimination.

The respondent supported deferral.

The Tribunal deferred the application, noting its general practice of deferring applications where an active grievance raises the same facts and human rights issues.

The applicant filed an application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, which was deferred pending a related application before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Tribunal subsequently requested an update on the status of the OLRB matter, warning that failure to respond could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

After the applicant failed to respond to multiple communications, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicants requested the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario to defer consideration of their applications following a Superior Court order under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) that lifted a stay of proceedings against the respondent.

The Tribunal determined that it was appropriate to cooperate with the CCAA proceedings and assist the parties in carrying out the terms of the Grievance Claims Procedure Order.

The Tribunal directed that the applications continue to be processed in accordance with its usual practices and set timelines for the filing of responses and the scheduling of hearings.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment based on citizenship, marital status, and age, claiming that workplace break scheduling favoured a 'Facebook and Smoker elite' group.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant could not point to any evidence linking the alleged unfair treatment to protected grounds under the Human Rights Code.

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

The applicant alleged discrimination based on marital status after his driver's licence was suspended for unpaid support payments under the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act, 1996.

He argued the legislation was discriminatory because it only applied to separated or divorced individuals.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal concluded that the legislation distinguishes between those who meet support obligations and those who do not, rather than creating a distinction based on the prohibited ground of marital status.

The applicant alleged age discrimination and reprisal after receiving over two years' working notice of termination.

The respondent requested dismissal of the termination and early retirement allegations, arguing they were filed outside the one-year limitation period under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code, which it claimed began when notice was given.

The Tribunal held that the limitation period for a termination begins on the effective date of the termination, not the date notice is given.

As the applicant was still in his working notice period, the termination allegation was not out of time.

The Tribunal deferred issues of prematurity and the timeliness of the specific termination meeting events to the hearing adjudicator.

The applicant, a former member of a housing co-operative, alleged discrimination and harassment based on disability by other members and the co-op's failure to address it.

The respondent co-op requested dismissal under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter was dealt with during eviction proceedings at the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding the LTB only addressed the eviction and not the human rights allegations.

The Tribunal also denied the respondent's request for a summary hearing.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment and services based on place of origin, ethnic origin, and sex after she was allegedly assaulted and threatened by a customer at her workplace.

She claimed the police and her employer failed to take her allegations seriously.

The respondent employer requested the application be deferred pending the outcome of a related WSIB appeal regarding whether a traumatic event actually occurred.

The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the issues before the WSIB and the Tribunal, and ordered the application deferred pending the completion of the WSIB appeal process.

The respondent requested an order to remove a partially redacted email from the Tribunal file, arguing that as a health information custodian under the Personal Health Information Protection Act, it had an obligation to protect client privacy.

The applicant opposed the request, arguing no personal health information was disclosed.

The Tribunal found the client's name was not relevant to the issues in the Application and ordered the non-redacted copy replaced with a fully redacted version.

The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination based on disability.

The respondent failed to file a Response despite receiving notice and a further direction from the Tribunal warning of the consequences.

Pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal deemed the respondent to have accepted all allegations in the application and waived all rights to notice or participation.

A case management conference call was scheduled to determine the next steps for the applicant to prove her case.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal directed the parties to exchange and file hearing materials.

The respondent complied, but the applicant did not.

After the applicant failed to respond to a Case Assessment Direction warning of potential dismissal, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on race, colour, sex, and reprisal by a children's aid society regarding its handling of his child custody and protection concerns.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant provided no evidence beyond his own perceptions to link the respondents' actions to his race or gender.

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

The respondent requested that the human rights application be deferred pending the outcome of a related union grievance and WSIB proceedings.

The Tribunal refused to defer the application, noting that the respondent was challenging the timeliness of the grievance, effectively arguing the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction.

The Tribunal also found that the WSIB proceedings involved narrow issues that would not significantly impact the key allegations in the human rights application.

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

The Tribunal erroneously deferred the application pending the completion of grievance proceedings that had already been settled.

After almost two years, the applicant requested to reactivate the application.

The respondent objected, citing delay and prejudice.

The Tribunal found that it would be unfair and contrary to section 43(2)1 of the Human Rights Code to dispose of the application due to the Tribunal's own error in deferring it.

The request to reactivate was granted and the matter was directed to mediation.

The applicant failed to comply with the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure regarding pre-hearing disclosure of documents and witnesses.

Despite requests from the respondent and a Case Assessment Direction from the Tribunal warning of potential dismissal, the applicant did not provide the required materials or contact the Tribunal.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned and cancelled the scheduled hearing dates.

The applicant alleged age discrimination after being screened out of two job competitions at the City of Toronto.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed several procedural requests.

The Tribunal removed two individual respondents as parties, finding their presence unnecessary for a fair resolution.

The respondents' request for a summary hearing was refused.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to produce the redacted applications and CVs of candidates who were screened into the competitions, finding them arguably relevant to the applicant's claim that he was equally or better qualified.

The applicant sought an order removing the respondent's law firm as counsel, alleging a conflict of interest because he had previously contacted the firm's administrative staff to seek legal advice and provided confidential information.

The Tribunal applied the test from MacDonald Estate and considered the Law Society's Rules of Professional Conduct.

Assuming confidential information was imparted, the Tribunal found that the law firm had implemented reasonable measures, such as ethical screens, to ensure no confidential information would be accessed by its lawyers.

The motion to disqualify the law firm was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, which was deferred pending the completion of a related grievance.

The Tribunal sent multiple letters requesting an update on the status of the grievance, warning that failure to respond could 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.