Human rights application alleging age discrimination by WSIB dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
The applicant alleged that the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board discriminated against her on the basis of age regarding her placement in a Labour Market Reentry program.
The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.
The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it had no jurisdiction because section 2.1(1) of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act explicitly provides that decisions under the Act authorizing age distinctions apply despite the Human Rights Code.
Tribunal scheduled a hearing to determine its jurisdiction to remove a litigation guardian holding a power of attorney.
During a case management conference call in a human rights application, the respondent raised a preliminary issue regarding whether the applicant's litigation guardian, who holds powers of attorney for personal care and property, should be removed due to an alleged conflict of interest.
The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the applicant to file the relevant Power of Attorney and scheduling a teleconference hearing to determine whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to remove a litigation guardian under the Substitute Decisions Act.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to file a required Reply.
The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.
The Tribunal directed the applicant to file a Reply to the respondent's request to dismiss the application under section 45.1.
The applicant failed to file the Reply or communicate with the Tribunal.
Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.
Tribunal has jurisdiction under its procedural powers to appoint a litigation guardian for an incapable party.
The applicant, who lacked legal capacity, sought to have his sister appointed as his litigation guardian for a human rights application.
The respondent union argued that previous case law suggested the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to make such an appointment.
The Tribunal held that its power to control its own process under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and the Human Rights Code includes the jurisdiction to appoint a litigation guardian.
The Tribunal directed that a hearing be held to determine whether the proposed litigation guardian should be appointed in this specific case.
Human rights complaint withdrawn with leave of the Tribunal.
The complainant sought to withdraw her human rights complaint against the Ontario Human Rights Commission and the Ministry of Community and Social Services.
The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario granted leave and the complaint was withdrawn.
Disclosing the mere existence of a settlement does not breach standard confidentiality or non-disparagement clauses.
The applicants brought an application alleging that the respondent breached the confidentiality and non-disparagement provisions of a settlement agreement by telling a current employee that she had taken the applicants to the Human Rights Tribunal and received a settlement.
The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine if the alleged statements constituted a breach.
The Tribunal found that disclosing the mere existence of a settlement does not violate a confidentiality clause that prohibits discussing the 'terms' of the settlement, nor does it constitute disparagement.
The application was dismissed.
Human rights application dismissed for abuse of process due to applicant's persistent abusive and disrespectful conduct.
The applicant filed a human rights application and subsequently engaged in a pattern of disrespectful and abusive communication, including using fictitious insulting names for respondents, comparing them to Nazis, and using profanity.
The Tribunal previously ordered the applicant to cease this conduct and file an amended application.
The applicant refused to comply, continued the abusive communications, and attacked the Tribunal's integrity.
The Tribunal dismissed the application for abuse of process under section 23(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and the Tribunal's Rules.
The complainant sought to withdraw his human rights complaint against the Ministry of Community and Social Services.
The complainant withdrew their human rights complaint against the Ministry of Community and Social Services.
The Tribunal granted leave for the withdrawal.
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 to withdraw the complaint.
Tribunal affirms Toronto Police Services Board is the proper organizational respondent in human rights applications.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging racial profiling during a traffic stop, naming the 'Toronto Police Service' as the organizational respondent.
When no response was filed, the Tribunal amended the style of cause to name the 'Toronto Police Services Board' and issued a failure to respond decision.
The respondents requested a reconsideration, arguing the Chief of Police should be the respondent instead of the Board.
The Tribunal dismissed the request, citing Divisional Court jurisprudence establishing the Board as the proper respondent liable for the actions of police officers, and gave the Board a final opportunity to file a response.
Consent adjournment request to pursue mediation denied absent exceptional circumstances.
The parties sought a consent adjournment of a scheduled hearing to attempt mediation.
The Tribunal denied the request, noting that its Practice Directions and case law clearly state that the desire to explore settlement does not constitute exceptional circumstances warranting an adjournment.
The parties were directed to immediately file their overdue witness statements and documents, and any preliminary motions would be dealt with at the outset of the hearing.
Request to add personal respondents dismissed and Association removed as respondent due to failure to file submissions.
The applicant failed to file submissions by the extended deadline regarding his request to add further personal respondents and to maintain the Toronto Professional Fire Fighters' Association as a respondent.
Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the request to add personal respondents and removed the Association as a respondent.
Tribunal removed several personal respondents and the Association after applicant failed to file required submissions.
The applicant failed to file submissions by the extended deadline explaining why the Application should continue against the personal respondents other than Frank Mitchell and against the Association, in light of the reasoning in Boyd v. Toronto (City).
Consequently, the Tribunal ordered the removal of the Association and the other personal respondents from the Application.
Personal respondents and union removed from human rights application after applicant failed to file submissions.
In an interim decision, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario removed the union and several personal respondents from the application.
The Tribunal had previously directed the applicant to file written submissions explaining why the application should not be dismissed against these respondents in light of a related decision.
Because the applicant failed to file any submissions, the Tribunal ordered their removal and amended the style of cause accordingly.
Tribunal removed multiple respondents from human rights application after applicant failed to file required submissions.
The Tribunal previously directed the applicant to file written submissions explaining why the application should not be dismissed against certain personal respondents and the Association in light of a related decision.
The applicant failed to file any submissions by the extended deadline.
Consequently, the Tribunal ordered the removal of the Association and several personal respondents from the application.
Tribunal removed several respondents from human rights application after applicant failed to file required submissions.
The applicant failed to file submissions explaining why the application should continue against several personal respondents and the Association, as directed by a previous Case Assessment Direction.
Consequently, the Tribunal ordered the removal of the Toronto Professional Fire Fighters’ Association, Local 3888, and several individuals as respondents to the application.
Tribunal suspends filing deadline after complainant's counsel is suspended without notifying him.
The Tribunal previously directed the complainant and the Commission to file detailed witness statements by a specified deadline, failing which the complaint might be dismissed as abandoned.
On the deadline day, the self-represented complainant wrote to the Tribunal explaining that his counsel had recently been suspended and had not informed him of the deadline.
In the circumstances, the Tribunal suspended the deadline and directed the scheduling of a conference call to discuss next steps.
Leave to amend the Application granted on consent.
The applicant sought leave to amend the human rights Application.
The respondent consented to the request, provided it was given an opportunity to file an amended Response.
The Tribunal granted the request and directed the respondent to file its amended Response by a specified date.