Reconsideration request dismissed; programs targeting heterosexism and sexual minorities do not discriminate against heterosexuals.
The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision dismissing his application for failing to establish a prima facie case of discrimination based on sexual orientation.
He alleged the respondent's programs targeting heterosexism and sexual minorities discriminated against heterosexuals.
The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no reasonable prospect of success, as education about heterosexism is not discriminatory and programs targeting disadvantaged groups are protected as special programs under s. 14(1) of the Human Rights Code.
Human rights complaint withdrawn with leave of the Tribunal.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 and the Ontario Human Rights Commission.
The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario granted leave and the complaint was withdrawn.
Adjournment request denied as applicant failed to provide exceptional circumstances.
The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing due to 'circumstances beyond her control' but provided no further explanation.
The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario denied the request, noting that its Practice Directions and case law require exceptional circumstances to grant an adjournment, which the applicant failed to establish.
Unlicensed representative excluded from HRTO hearing for exceeding the three-matter annual limit under LSUC by-laws.
At a hearing before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, the respondent objected to the applicant being represented by an unlicensed agent.
The proposed representative argued he fell under a Law Society Act by-law exemption for providing pro bono services to a friend.
However, he acknowledged providing legal services in respect of more than three matters per year, which disqualified him from the exemption.
The Tribunal excluded the representative and adjourned the hearing on consent, issuing procedural directions for document disclosure and witness statements.
Request for reconsideration of decision dismissing breach of settlement application denied for failing to meet criteria.
The applicants requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed their application alleging the respondent breached a settlement agreement.
The applicants argued the Tribunal erred in its interpretation of the Minutes of Settlement and raised new arguments regarding the Tribunal's mediation process.
The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicants failed to meet the strict criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.
The Tribunal noted that reconsideration is not an appeal or an opportunity to present new arguments that could have been raised earlier, and clarified that the Tribunal does not represent parties or mandate standard templates during voluntary mediation.
Reconsideration request dismissed as alleged new evidence did not invalidate the signed settlement agreement.
The applicant sought reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed her application for being outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction due to a signed release.
The applicant argued there was new evidence regarding the timing and signatures of the settlement agreement.
The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding the evidence was not new and did not invalidate the agreement under which she had accepted monies and released her human rights claims.
Application dismissed; passing comment about customer's pregnancy by service provider does not violate the Code.
The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of sex and family status after a McDonald's employee allegedly made a passing comment about her pregnancy during a dispute over a drive-thru order.
The Tribunal held a summary hearing under Rule 19A to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.
The Tribunal found that a passing comment referring to pregnancy, without more, does not constitute discrimination or harassment under the Code.
The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.
Tribunal grants respondents 10 days to file a Response after missing the initial deadline.
The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.
The respondents failed to file a Response by the deadline set in the Notice of Application.
The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondents of the consequences of failing to participate under Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.
The respondents were granted 10 days to file a Response along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to Notice of Intent to Dismiss.
The applicant filed an application under s. 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 failed to respond to the NOID by the specified deadline.
Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.
Human rights application withdrawn with leave of the Tribunal pursuant to minutes of settlement.
The applicant sought to withdraw her human rights application against the respondents.
The withdrawal was requested pursuant to Minutes of Settlement and a Consent Award dated March 23, 2011.
The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario granted leave to withdraw the application.
Application withdrawn against union respondents following settlement; applicant directed to update allegations against remaining respondents.
The applicant reached a settlement with SEIU Local 1 and several individual respondents, leading to the withdrawal of the application against them.
The Tribunal directed the applicant to file an updated summary of allegations against the remaining respondents, including the College of Nurses of Ontario, within 28 days, failing which the application may be dismissed as abandoned.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to attend mediation or respond.
The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.
The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation session and did not respond to the Tribunal's subsequent correspondence directing her to advise of her intentions.
The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.
Respondent given 10 days to file a response to human rights application or face default proceedings.
The applicant filed a human rights application.
The respondent failed to file a response by the deadline.
The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent of the consequences of failing to participate under Rule 5.5 and granting the respondent 10 days to file a response with an explanation for the delay.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to Tribunal correspondence.
After indicating an intention to withdraw the application by telephone, the applicant failed to return the required Form 9 or respond to the Tribunal's written correspondence by the specified deadline.
The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) on the basis that the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.
The applicant was directed to respond but failed to do so by the deadline.
As a result, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.
The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation session and did not communicate with the Tribunal.
The Tribunal subsequently directed the applicant to advise of her intentions, warning that failure to respond would be deemed an abandonment of the application.
The applicant did not respond.
Respondent given 10 days to file a Response before Tribunal proceeds without further notice.
The respondent failed to file a Response by the deadline set in the Notice of Application.
The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondent to file a Response within 10 days, warning that failure to do so may result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming the respondent to have accepted the allegations.
After cancelling a scheduled mediation, the applicant indicated an intention to withdraw the application but failed to return the required forms or respond to subsequent Tribunal correspondence.
Reconsideration of untimely human rights application dismissed; union's refusal to grieve is not discrimination.
The applicant sought reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application for being filed outside the one-year time limit.
The applicant argued there were new facts, errors in the decision, and that a union meeting constituted the last incident of discrimination.
The Tribunal found no new evidence that could not have been obtained earlier and held that a union's decision not to pursue a grievance is not an incident of discrimination under the Code.
The request for reconsideration was dismissed.
She failed to attend a scheduled mediation session and subsequently failed to respond to a Tribunal direction warning her that failure to respond would result in the application being deemed abandoned.