Request for leave to amend the human rights application granted.
The applicant sought leave to amend the Application before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.
The respondent took no position on the request.
The Tribunal granted the request to amend and provided a deadline for the respondent to file an amended Response.
Application closed as withdrawn because it was intended as an amendment to a previously withdrawn application.
The applicant filed a new application which appeared to be intended as an amendment to a previous application against the same respondent.
As the previous application had already been withdrawn, the Tribunal closed this new application as withdrawn.
Request for reconsideration of decision regarding low floor bus accommodation dismissed.
The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application against the respondent municipality regarding the provision of low floor buses.
The applicant argued he was surprised by the respondent's reliance on section 11 of the Human Rights Code, alleged bias by the Tribunal in limiting evidence, and pointed out a factual error regarding bus service frequency.
The Tribunal found that the applicant had the opportunity to address undue hardship during the hearing, the limitation of evidence was a proper exercise of the Tribunal's powers, and while there was a minor factual error regarding service frequency, it did not change the conclusion that the respondent had accommodated the applicant to the point of undue hardship.
The request for reconsideration was dismissed.
Union and individual respondents removed from human rights application for lack of specific Code allegations.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal after being dismissed for allegedly stealing cheese.
He named his former employer, several individuals, and his union as respondents.
In an interim decision, the Tribunal considered whether the union and several individual respondents should be removed.
Finding no specific allegations that the union or the named individuals (other than one manager) violated the Human Rights Code, the Tribunal removed them as respondents and directed the remaining respondents to file a response.
Production of undisclosed arbitration documents ordered as arguably relevant to s. 45.1 analysis.
The applicant sought production of documents not disclosed during a prior grievance arbitration, arguing they were relevant to whether the arbitration appropriately dealt with the substance of his human rights applications under s. 45.1 of the Code.
The Ontario Human Rights Commission also sought leave to intervene.
The Tribunal granted the Commission's unopposed request to intervene.
The Tribunal also granted the applicant's production request, finding that the undisclosed documents were arguably relevant to the s. 45.1 analysis.
Human rights application alleging garbage collection limit discriminates against large families dismissed summarily.
The applicants, a family with six children, alleged that the City of Hamilton's by-law restricting curbside garbage collection to one container per household discriminated against them on the basis of family status.
The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.
The Tribunal found that the Code does not protect against the financial consequences of greater consumption of municipal services by larger families.
The application was dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success, as the policy did not constitute substantive discrimination.
Application challenging birth certificate sex designation requirements deferred pending outcome of similar ongoing case.
The applicant filed a human rights application challenging the requirement under section 36 of the Vital Statistics Act that a transsexual person must undergo transsexual surgery to obtain a change of sex designation on a birth certificate.
The Tribunal noted that a very similar case, XY v. Ontario, was currently being heard and proposed deferring the application.
The applicant opposed deferral and requested the materials from the XY case.
The Tribunal denied the request for materials due to privacy concerns and a partial publication ban in XY, and ordered that the application be deferred pending the conclusion of the XY proceedings to avoid unnecessary duplication.
Interim remedy to require municipality to clear snow windrows denied due to delay and alteration of status quo.
The applicant, who has physical disabilities, alleged that the respondent Town discriminated against him by failing to clear snow windrows left by snowplows at the end of his driveway.
He sought an interim remedy requiring the Town to clear the windrows pending the final hearing.
The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant had delayed in seeking the remedy, the requested order would alter rather than preserve the existing state of affairs, and the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of his inability to secure alternative snow removal services.
Request for a Tribunal Ordered Inquiry to view a police memo book dismissed.
The complainant filed a Request for a Tribunal Ordered Inquiry seeking to view a police constable's memo book, following the dismissal of a previous request for production of the same document.
The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario dismissed the request for the reasons expressed in its previous interim decision.
Human rights application against union dismissed for delay as it was filed outside the one-year limitation period.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that her union and its representative discriminated against her on the basis of age during the grievance process, which concluded with a settlement in January 2009.
The application was filed in May 2010, beyond the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.
The Tribunal held a summary hearing and found that the application was filed out of time and that the applicant failed to establish good faith for the delay.
The application was dismissed.
Reconsideration granted and dismissal set aside where Tribunal's administrative error caused missed rescheduling request.
The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of a decision dismissing his application for failing to attend a conference call.
The applicant noted he had previously requested the call be rescheduled, but the request was missed due to an administrative error by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal reconsidered its decision on its own initiative under Rule 26.9, set aside the dismissal, and directed that a new conference call be scheduled to hear the merits of the application.
Request to lift deferral of human rights application denied due to outstanding grievance.
The applicant requested that the Tribunal proceed with his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of his grievances under a collective agreement.
The applicant cited a lack of confidence in the grievance process and his union.
The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no reasons to depart from its usual practice of deferring applications to avoid duplication of proceedings when a grievance is outstanding.
Request for production of entire police memo books denied due to privacy and relevance concerns.
The complainant in a human rights proceeding requested an order for the production of a police officer's entire memo books from 2000 to 2004, alleging the officer scripted his notes.
The Tribunal denied the request, noting the notebooks contained personal information about unrelated incidents and individuals.
The Tribunal directed the officer to bring the notebooks to the hearing, where the complainant could cross-examine him and the Tribunal could review them if necessary.
The Tribunal also addressed the respondent's concerns regarding the complainant's compliance with prior disclosure directions.
Motion to dismiss denied; internal employer investigations are not 'proceedings' under section 45.1 of the Code.
The respondent requested that the human rights application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that an internal employer investigation had appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.
The Tribunal dismissed the request, applying established jurisprudence that an internal employer process does not constitute a 'proceeding' within the meaning of section 45.1.
The application was directed to be scheduled for a hearing on the merits.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to Tribunal directions.
The applicant filed a human rights application which was stayed after the respondent filed for protection under the Companies Creditors' Arrangement Act and went into receivership.
The Tribunal directed the applicant to show he had commenced a motion to lift the stay, warning that failure to do so could result in the application being deemed abandoned.
The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's directions.
Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.
Human rights complaint dismissed after complainant passed away with no known next of kin.
The complainant, who had filed a human rights complaint relating to the Special Diet Allowance, passed away.
The Tribunal's correspondence was returned, and neither the Commission nor the respondent had any record of next of kin.
After providing notice to the parties with no objections received, the Tribunal dismissed the complaint.
Human rights application deferred pending resolution of concurrent union grievances.
The respondent requested that the applicant's human rights application be deferred pending the conclusion of ongoing grievance proceedings under the collective agreement.
The applicant opposed the deferral, citing dissatisfaction with his union representation.
The Tribunal found a substantial overlap between the facts and human rights issues in the application and the grievances.
Following its general practice, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the resolution of the grievances and relieved the respondent from filing a full response at this time.
Application alleging breach of settlement dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to attend teleconference hearing.
The applicant filed an Application alleging a breach of settlement due to the late payment of settlement monies.
A teleconference hearing was scheduled for November 1, 2010.
The applicant failed to dial into the conference call within half an hour of the scheduled start time.
In accordance with the Tribunal's standard practice, the Application was dismissed as abandoned.
Tribunal orders self-represented applicant to cease abusive communications and file a clean application.
The respondent Shoppers Drug Mart requested orders prohibiting the self-represented applicant from communicating with its employees, attending its premises, and requiring him to conduct himself courteously.
The applicant had sent harassing emails, used fictitious and insulting names for individual respondents, and copied Tribunal members directly.
The Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction to grant general injunctive relief regarding the applicant's attendance at premises or general communications.
However, the Tribunal ordered the applicant to file a new application without insulting names, direct all communications through the Registrar and respondent's counsel, and maintain courteous conduct, warning that failure to comply could result in dismissal for abuse of process.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to attend summary hearing teleconference.
The applicant failed to dial in to a scheduled summary hearing teleconference.
After waiting half an hour past the scheduled start time, the adjudicator dismissed the application as abandoned, in accordance with the Tribunal's standard practice for non-attendance.