Human rights complaint withdrawn with leave of the Tribunal.
The complainant sought to withdraw his human rights complaint against the Ministry of Community and Social Services.
The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario granted leave and the complaint was withdrawn.
Human rights application dismissed after applicant failed to attend scheduled summary hearing.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, and age.
A summary hearing was scheduled to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.
The applicant failed to file required materials and sent an email after business hours the day before the hearing requesting an extension or withdrawal due to address issues.
The applicant did not attend the hearing.
The Tribunal dismissed the application due to the applicant's failure to attend, noting the prejudice to the respondents and the Tribunal's process.
Tribunal issues interim decision warning respondent of consequences for failing to file a Response.
The applicant filed a human rights application.
Two respondents filed their Response, but the respondent F.J. Davey Home failed to do so despite advising it would be filed shortly.
The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent of the consequences of failing to respond under Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, and granted an extension to March 10, 2011 to file a Response with an explanation for the delay.
Intervention granted; schedule set for submissions on appointment of litigation guardian.
The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario issued an interim decision granting ARCH Disability Law Centre leave to intervene in the proceeding.
The Tribunal also set a schedule for submissions regarding the applicant's request to appoint Sheila Barber as litigation guardian, noting the respondent's intention to argue a conflict of interest.
Application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction to review the OHRC's execution of its mandate.
The applicant filed an application alleging a breach of settlement by the Ontario Human Rights Commission.
Following a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, the applicant clarified he was alleging the Commission failed to protect his human rights, rather than a breach of settlement.
The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it had no jurisdiction to review how the Commission carried out its mandate under the previous version of the Human Rights Code.
Human rights application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to prior Commission complaint and delay.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination regarding the termination of his employment, which occurred in 2004 or earlier.
The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction on two grounds.
First, the subject-matter was the same as a previous complaint filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission, barring the application under section 53(8) of the Human Rights Code.
Second, the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period under section 34, and the applicant failed to establish that the delay was incurred in good faith.
Human rights application deferred pending completion of concurrent WSIAT appeal on overlapping issues.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment because of disability and reprisal.
The respondents sought to dismiss the application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application had been appropriately dealt with in Workplace Safety and Insurance Board proceedings.
The applicant had appealed the WSIB decision to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT).
The Tribunal decided to defer the human rights application pending the completion of the WSIAT proceedings, as there were significant overlapping issues, such as whether the applicant voluntarily severed his employment or was dismissed.
Tribunal dismisses reconsideration request and defers ruling on prima facie case in disability discrimination application.
The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the ground of disability and reprisal following a workplace assault.
In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed four issues: a request to reconsider the removal of individual respondents, an intervention request by the Association, a request to strike untimely allegations, and a request to dismiss for no prima facie case.
The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, granted the intervention, clarified that older allegations were background only, and deferred ruling on the prima facie case issue, directing the City to file a Response.
Human rights application dismissed for being filed outside the one-year limitation period without good faith delay.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and failure to accommodate his disability, which he claimed led to his constructive dismissal when he retired.
The respondent requested that the application be dismissed as it was filed more than one year after the last alleged incident of discrimination.
The Tribunal found that the applicant's retirement date was not an 'incident' of discrimination and that the last alleged discriminatory act occurred outside the one-year limitation period.
The Tribunal also found that the applicant failed to provide medical evidence to establish that the delay was incurred in good faith.
The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Human rights application dismissed for delay as applicant failed to establish good faith for late filing.
The applicant, a former fire captain, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and failure to accommodate his disability, which he claimed led to his forced retirement.
The application was filed more than one year after the last alleged incident.
The respondents requested that the application be dismissed for delay.
The Tribunal found that the applicant's explanations for the delay, including his medical condition, alleged misinformation from the Commission, and ignorance of changes to the human rights system, did not establish that the delay was incurred in good faith.
Consequently, the application was dismissed as being outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.
Human rights application dismissed for delay; ignorance of legal rights does not establish good faith.
The respondents requested the application be dismissed for delay, as it was filed more than one year after the last alleged incident.
The applicant argued the delay was in good faith due to his depression and his lack of knowledge about the new human rights system.
The Tribunal found that medical evidence is required to establish that a disability prevented an applicant from pursuing their rights, which was not provided.
Furthermore, the discoverability principle does not apply to ignorance of legal rights.
The Tribunal concluded the application was filed out of time without good faith for the delay, and dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction.
Adjournment request denied; retention of new counsel is not an exceptional circumstance.
The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing on the basis that counsel was recently retained and neither party had complied with disclosure rules.
The respondent consented to the request.
The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario denied the adjournment, noting that the retention of new counsel does not constitute exceptional circumstances justifying an adjournment under the Tribunal's Practice Directions.
The parties were directed to immediately comply with their disclosure obligations.
Request to adjourn summary hearing pending conclusion of concurrent disciplinary proceedings denied.
The applicant requested an order to defer or adjourn a scheduled summary hearing before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario until the conclusion of his concurrent disciplinary hearing at the Ontario College of Teachers.
The applicant, who was self-represented in both proceedings, argued he needed more time to prepare and that facts would be clarified in the disciplinary hearing.
The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant failed to respond to scheduling inquiries, that there was a serious issue regarding whether the application was an abuse of process, and that no exceptional circumstances justified an adjournment.
Tribunal defers jurisdictional challenge to merits hearing but removes individual municipal employees as respondents.
The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of family status after the respondent City required her to apply for a minor variance to permit front pad parking for her large vehicle.
The respondent requested that the Tribunal dismiss the application on preliminary jurisdictional grounds and remove the individual respondents.
The Tribunal declined to deal with the jurisdictional issues as a preliminary matter, deferring them to the merits hearing, but granted the request to remove the individual respondents as their personal conduct was not a central issue.
Human rights application challenging birth certificate surgery requirement deferred pending decision in lead case.
The applicant, a transgender man who had not undergone surgery, challenged the requirement under section 36 of the Vital Statistics Act that requires 'transsexual surgery' to change the sex designation on a birth certificate.
The Tribunal considered whether to defer the application pending its decision in another case (XY v. Ontario) challenging the same provision.
Despite the applicant's objections that his circumstances differed, the Tribunal found that deferral was appropriate as the pending decision would have a significant impact on the resolution of the complex legal issues involved.
Jurisdictional challenge regarding WSIB adjudicative functions referred to a three-member panel.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination after being denied mental stress benefits by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB).
The WSIB brought a request for an order during proceedings, arguing the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to review the adjudicative functions of another statutory tribunal.
Noting conflicting jurisprudence on this issue, the Interim Chair exercised his power under s. 33 of the Human Rights Code to appoint a three-member panel to decide the jurisdictional question and directed the scheduling of an oral hearing.
Human rights application dismissed; physician protected by mandatory reporting immunity and no evidence of discrimination.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of creed (vegetarianism) and family status against a physician and the Children's Aid Society of Toronto.
The physician had reported the applicant to the Society after suspecting his three-year-old child required medical treatment for rickets, which the parents were refusing.
The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding it had no reasonable prospect of success.
The claim against the physician was barred by the statutory immunity for mandatory reporting under section 72(7) of the Child and Family Services Act, and there was no evidence linking the Society's child protection actions to any prohibited ground under the Human Rights Code.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to file required written submissions.
The applicant was directed to file written submissions on preliminary issues by December 16, 2010, and was warned that failure to do so would result in the application being considered abandoned.
The applicant failed to file any submissions.
Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.
Request to reactivate deferred human rights application denied pending completion of grievance process.
The applicant requested that his deferred human rights application be reactivated, alleging a further reprisal by the respondent.
The Tribunal reviewed the provided email exchange and found it to be regular business communication subject to the grievance process.
The Tribunal denied the request, confirming the application remains deferred pending the completion of the grievance and arbitration process, and directed that no further reactivation requests be considered absent exceptional circumstances.