Motion to add respondent granted; request for summary hearing dismissed for failure to file full response.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sexual harassment, disability discrimination, and reprisals.
She brought a Request for Order During Proceedings to add Metro Municipal Recycling Services Inc. as a respondent.
The Tribunal granted the request, finding it met the requirements for adding a party and that there was no prejudice.
The respondent Cascades Recovery Inc. brought a Request for Summary Hearing, arguing it was not the applicant's employer.
The Tribunal dismissed the request, noting Cascades had failed to file a full Response as required by the Rules and that a summary hearing was not appropriate given the legal and factual issues.
Adjournment request denied as applicant had sufficient time to find new representation.
The applicant requested an adjournment of six scheduled hearing dates because his paralegal withdrew and he had difficulty finding a new representative.
The respondent opposed the adjournment and requested an order for a detailed list of documents the applicant intended to rely upon.
The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, finding no exceptional circumstances given the applicant had several months' notice to find new representation.
The Tribunal also declined to order a detailed list of documents, noting that any resulting prejudice could be addressed if the respondent objected to document admission at the hearing.
Human rights complaint dismissed as abandoned following the complainant's death and inability to locate next of kin.
The complainant passed away, and her representative withdrew after being unable to obtain instructions from anyone on behalf of the deceased or her estate.
The Commission attempted to contact the complainant's next of kin without success.
Given the circumstances, the Tribunal dismissed the complaint as abandoned.
Reconsideration granted where failure to update Tribunal was due to inadvertent faxing error.
The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application as abandoned.
The application had been deferred pending a union grievance, and was dismissed when the Tribunal did not receive a requested status update.
The Tribunal found that the applicant had prepared the update but, due to an inadvertent error by union staff, it was faxed to the respondents but not the Tribunal.
Finding no prejudice to the respondents, the Tribunal granted the reconsideration and ordered the application to remain deferred.
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.
Individual respondent removed from human rights application after applicant failed to file supporting submissions.
The Tribunal previously directed the applicant to provide written submissions if he wished to keep Frank Mitchell as an individual respondent.
The applicant failed to file any submissions.
Consequently, the Tribunal removed Frank Mitchell as a respondent and amended the style of cause.
The application was placed in the queue for mediation.
Human rights complaint file closed following settlement between the parties.
The applicant advised the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario that the complaint against the respondent had been settled.
The Tribunal acknowledged the settlement and closed the file.
Human rights application regarding mobility scooter repairs dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in services based on disability, claiming the respondent delayed ordering parts for his mobility scooter.
The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.
The Tribunal found that the evidence pointed to a personal disagreement rather than discrimination based on disability.
The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.
Human rights application against judge barred by judicial immunity; claim against mediator allowed to proceed.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability because a Deputy Judge and a mediator at the Small Claims Court did not permit him to make an audio recording of proceedings as an accommodation.
The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss to determine if the application was barred by judicial immunity.
The Tribunal dismissed the portion of the application relating to the judge's actions, finding it was plainly and obviously barred by judicial immunity.
However, the Tribunal allowed the portion relating to the mediator's actions to continue, as it was not plain and obvious that judicial immunity applied to the mediator.
Clergy's expression of religious views during a rite is not a 'service' under the Code.
The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation after a priest expressed views on homosexuality during a religious rite at the applicant's parents' home.
The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the interaction fell within the social area of 'services' under the Human Rights Code.
The Tribunal found that the actions of a clergyperson performing purely religious functions, including teaching and dissemination of religious beliefs, are protected by freedom of religion and do not constitute a 'service' under the Code.
The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Tribunal denies police request for extension to clarify respondent identity, amending style of cause itself.
The applicant filed a human rights application naming the '42 Division Police' as the respondent.
Counsel for the Toronto Police Services Board requested clarification on the proper respondent and an extension of time to file a response.
The Tribunal dismissed the request, noting it was inconsistent with previous rulings involving the same respondents.
The Tribunal amended the style of cause on its own motion to name both the Toronto Police Services Board and the Chief of Police, and ordered the respondents to file their response by the original deadline.
Application alleging citizenship discrimination for OHIP denial dismissed as s. 16(1) statutory defence applies.
The applicant, who had no legal immigration status in Canada, alleged that her ineligibility for Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP) benefits constituted discrimination on the basis of citizenship under the Human Rights Code.
The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that even if the denial of coverage raised the ground of citizenship, the defence under s. 16(1) of the Code applied.
Section 16(1) provides that there is no discrimination where Canadian citizenship is a requirement imposed or authorized by law, which includes distinctions based on legal immigration status.
Extension of time to file response granted to allow counsel to review documents.
The applicant filed a human rights application against the Toronto Police Services Board and Toronto Police Services.
The respondents requested an extension of time to file their response, arguing that the identity of the proper respondents needed to be clarified first, and alternatively, that counsel required more time to review documents.
The Tribunal rejected the request based on the naming of the respondents, noting it was inconsistent with previous clear rulings involving the same parties.
However, the Tribunal granted an extension to April 29, 2011, to allow counsel sufficient time to review documents and consult individuals.
Reconsideration denied where applicant failed to attend teleconference and instead requested a Skype call.
The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application after he failed to attend a scheduled summary hearing teleconference.
The applicant argued he had provided a Skype username by email in the middle of the night before the hearing and expected the Tribunal to call him via Skype.
The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the applicant's failure to call into the provided conference number or provide a valid telephone number was not excused by his late email requesting a Skype call.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to attend teleconference summary hearing.
The applicant failed to attend a scheduled summary hearing by teleconference.
Despite being directed to provide a telephone number where he could be reached, the applicant instead demanded the Tribunal call a Skype number shortly before the hearing.
The Tribunal does not conduct hearings via Skype.
As the applicant had notice of the hearing and failed to attend or provide a valid telephone number, the application was dismissed as abandoned.
Human rights application dismissed at summary hearing for duplicating previous application and lacking prospect of success.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination against her union and its counsel.
The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that it duplicated a previously dismissed application and was barred by res judicata.
Furthermore, the applicant provided no reasonable basis to link the respondents' conduct in representing her to the ground of age.
Reconsideration of abandoned application denied; dealing with other matters does not excuse ignoring Tribunal directions.
The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application as abandoned.
She argued that her failure to respond to Tribunal directions was due to a more urgent court matter and health issues.
The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that she provided no medical evidence of an inability to communicate and that dealing with other matters does not justify ignoring Tribunal directions.
The Tribunal concluded there were no factors outweighing the public interest in the finality of its decisions.
Leave to intervene granted to three organizations in human rights application.
The Ontario Human Rights Commission intervened as of right with the applicant's consent.
The Human Rights Legal Support Centre, the Office of the Employer Advisor, and the Office of the Worker Advisor sought leave to intervene.
The requests were unopposed and deemed appropriate.
The Tribunal granted leave to intervene to all three organizations.
Human rights application dismissed for abandonment and for being filed outside the one-year limitation period.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment.
The Tribunal scheduled a teleconference to address the respondents' requests to dismiss the application for delay and failure to state a prima facie case.
The applicant failed to attend the scheduled teleconference.
The Tribunal dismissed the application on the basis that it was deemed abandoned and, additionally, because it was filed outside the one-year statutory time limit under section 34 of the Human Rights Code without establishing good faith for the delay.
The complainant requested to withdraw his human rights complaint against the Ministry of Community and Social Services and the Ontario Human Rights Commission.