Human rights application alleging discrimination in termination of ODSP benefits dismissed for no reasonable prospect of success.
The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability, race, ancestry, and ethnic origin after his Mandatory Special Necessities (MSN) benefits under the Ontario Disability Support Program were terminated for failing to provide a new medical form.
The Tribunal held a summary hearing in writing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.
The Tribunal found that requiring medical documentation to confirm eligibility for a disability-based benefit program does not constitute discrimination under the Human Rights Code, and that the applicant's allegations regarding race and ethnic origin were raised too late and lacked factual foundation.
The application was dismissed.
Tribunal deferred decision on whether police complaint process appropriately dealt with human rights application.
The respondent requested the dismissal of a human rights application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application was appropriately dealt with through a complaint and investigation under the Police Services Act.
The Tribunal noted that the application of s. 45.1 in the context of the Police Services Act is a significant issue arising in multiple cases.
The Tribunal deferred the issue, indicating it would issue a further Case Assessment Direction and invited potential interveners to file requests.
Application against Grievance Settlement Board dismissed as adjudicative decisions are protected by judicial immunity.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment and reprisal, naming the employer, the union, and the Grievance Settlement Board (GSB) as respondents.
The GSB sought to be removed as a respondent, arguing that its adjudicative decisions, such as granting adjournments, are protected by judicial immunity and do not constitute a service under section 1 of the Human Rights Code.
The Tribunal agreed, finding that it has no jurisdiction over the GSB's adjudicative decisions or its alleged failure to develop specific rules for human rights grievances.
The application against the GSB was dismissed.
Tribunal scheduled oral submissions to determine if Police Services Act investigation warrants dismissing human rights application.
The respondent requested that the human rights application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that a complaint and investigation under the Police Services Act appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.
The Tribunal noted that the application of section 45.1 in the context of the Police Services Act is a significant issue arising in multiple cases.
The Tribunal scheduled a half-day conference call to hear oral submissions from the parties on this issue and invited potential interveners to file requests.
Tribunal removes Social Benefits Tribunal as respondent and directs production of special diet allowance records.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability regarding her special diet allowance under the Ontario Disability Support Program.
In this interim decision, the Tribunal removed the Social Benefits Tribunal as a respondent and corrected the name of the remaining respondent to Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Community and Social Services, as no parties objected to these changes.
The Tribunal also directed the respondent to produce the applicant's special diet allowance application forms and current allowance information to assist in determining next steps.
Human rights complaint withdrawn with leave of the Tribunal.
The complainant sought to withdraw her human rights complaint against the Ministry of Community and Social Services.
The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario granted leave and the complaint was withdrawn.
Adjournment request denied; late retention of counsel does not constitute exceptional circumstances.
The respondents requested an adjournment of a scheduled reconsideration hearing on the basis that their counsel had just been retained.
The Tribunal denied the request, noting that late retention of counsel does not constitute exceptional circumstances justifying an adjournment under the Tribunal's Practice Direction.
Human rights application dismissed; applicant's decision to cross picket line was not based on creed.
The applicant, a paramedic and union steward, crossed the picket line during a 2002 strike.
He subsequently faced workplace harassment from colleagues and filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of creed, claiming his Christian faith prevented him from withdrawing medical services.
Following a hearing with multiple witnesses, the Tribunal found the applicant's evidence lacked credibility and concluded his decision to work was based on opposition to the strike's utility, not his religious beliefs.
The application was dismissed as the Code was not engaged.
Leave to intervene granted to migrant workers' advocacy group in human rights applications.
Justicia for Migrant Workers (J4MW) sought leave to intervene and present expert evidence in human rights applications alleging sexual harassment and differential pay of migrant workers at the respondent's fish processing facility.
The respondents opposed the request, arguing it would cause delay and add complexity.
The Tribunal granted the request, finding that J4MW had a particular perspective to add regarding the social context of migrant workers that would assist the Tribunal, and that the new Code and Rules permit granting an intervenor full participatory rights.
Request for interim remedy to maintain $610 Special Diet Allowance dismissed for lack of merit.
The applicant requested an interim remedy to maintain her Special Diet Allowance (SDA) at $610 per month, an amount she had been receiving due to an administrative error.
Following changes to the SDA schedule, she was required to reapply and expected her allowance to be reduced to $144.
The Tribunal applied the test for interim remedies and the principles from the Ball decision regarding SDA discrimination.
Finding that the applicant had not presented evidence of general recognition in the medical community that her condition required the requested diet, the Tribunal concluded the application did not appear to have merit and dismissed the request for an interim remedy.
Misnamed respondent ordered to file response; overly technical refusal to respond violates Tribunal rules.
The applicant filed a human rights application naming "Officer Sunny Day" as a respondent.
The respondents failed to respond on behalf of this officer, advising the Tribunal that no such officer existed, despite it being clear that the intended respondent was Detective Robin Dey (badge #1099).
The Tribunal held that it is overly technical and inconsistent with the fair and expeditious resolution of applications for a respondent to fail to respond because of a misnomer.
The Tribunal ordered the misnamed respondent to file a response and directed respondents' counsel to circulate the decision to lawyers who regularly work on police human rights applications.
Human rights complaint file closed as settled; complainant directed to file new application for alleged breach.
The complainant's human rights complaint was referred to the Tribunal in 2005.
The respondents and the Commission filed forms confirming the matter was settled in 2007, but the complainant did not.
After a Case Assessment Direction, the complainant indicated he needed help reopening the settlement due to alleged non-compliance and reprisals.
The Tribunal found the complainant provided no valid reason why the settlement should not end the matter, directed him to the Human Rights Legal Support Centre for his new allegations, and closed the file in accordance with the Minutes of Settlement.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to file a directed reply.
The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.
Following an interim decision directing the applicant to file a reply to the respondent's amended response and address a request to dismiss, the applicant failed to communicate with the Tribunal by the specified deadline.
Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.
Human rights application dismissed because the Ontario Sales Tax Transition Benefit is not a Code service.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination regarding the Ontario Sales Tax Transition Benefit (OSTTB).
The respondent argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the OSTTB is not a 'service' under the Human Rights Code.
The Tribunal found that the OSTTB is a periodic payment imposed by law and an integral part of the tax system, falling within the exception in section 10(1) of the Code.
Consequently, the application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over Ontario Sales Tax Transition Benefit as it is exempt from 'services'.
The applicant alleged that the Ontario Sales Tax Transition Benefit (OSTTB) discriminated against her on the basis of family and marital status, as single individuals received less than couples or single parents.
The Tribunal considered whether the OSTTB constituted a 'service' under section 1 of the Human Rights Code.
The Tribunal found that the OSTTB is a periodic payment imposed by law that is an integral part of the system of taxation.
Therefore, it falls within the exemption in section 10(1) of the Code and is not a 'service'.
The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Tribunal orders police respondents to file substantive response despite applicant incorrectly naming 'Toronto Police Service'.
The self-represented applicant named the 'Toronto Police Service' as the respondent.
The respondents failed to file a substantive response, arguing that the named entity was a nullity, despite previous Tribunal rulings that the Toronto Police Services Board and/or the Chief of Police must respond in such circumstances.
The Tribunal amended the style of cause on its own initiative and ordered the respondents to file a substantive response on the merits, expressing concern over their failure to follow clear Tribunal directions.
Unopposed request to amend human rights application granted; summary hearing cancelled.
The applicant filed an unopposed request to amend the human rights application.
The Tribunal granted the request and amended the application.
Consequently, the Tribunal determined that a summary hearing previously ordered on its own initiative under Rule 19A was no longer appropriate and cancelled it.
The respondents were given 21 days to file amended responses.
Subsequent request for reconsideration denied as no exceptional circumstances were found under Rule 25.7.1.
The applicant filed a subsequent Request for Reconsideration of a previous Reconsideration Decision that had denied reconsideration of the original decision.
The Tribunal denied the request, citing Rule 25.7.1 of the Rules of Procedure for Transitional Applications, which prohibits subsequent requests for reconsideration of the same decision absent exceptional circumstances.
The Tribunal found no exceptional circumstances and directed the applicant to file a Notice of Application for Judicial Review if he wished to challenge the decisions.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to a Case Assessment Direction.
The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to answer specific questions within 14 days, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal for abandonment.
The applicant failed to respond within the specified time.
Tribunal scheduled a hearing to determine preliminary issues including whether the application should be dismissed.
The respondents raised several preliminary issues regarding an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.
The Tribunal issued an interim decision scheduling a one-day in-person hearing to hear arguments on whether the application should be dismissed under section 45.1 or 34(11) of the Code, deferred pending civil proceedings, or dismissed against the Association for untimeliness or failure to raise a social area.
The Tribunal also directed that a copy of the decision be sent to the Ontario Human Rights Commission and the Office of the Independent Police Review Director to allow them an opportunity to intervene.