Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over newspaper editorials as they are not services or notices under the Code.
The applicant alleged that the respondents discriminated against him on the basis of place of origin by publishing an editorial in a newspaper that disparaged persons who moved to Prince Edward County from elsewhere.
The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine if it had jurisdiction over the application.
The Tribunal found that the content of a newspaper editorial is neither a 'service' under section 1 of the Human Rights Code nor a 'notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other similar representation' under section 13.
The Tribunal concluded it had no jurisdiction to scrutinize the content of newspaper editorials and dismissed the application.
Unopposed request to remove personal respondents granted and matter deferred on consent.
The applicant made an unopposed Request for Order to remove the personal respondents from the application.
The Tribunal granted the request.
On consent of the parties, the Tribunal also ordered that the respondent need not file a Response for up to one year, and that no further steps would be taken during that period unless contacted by a party.
Human rights application against municipal prosecutor dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to prosecutorial immunity.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex and family status after a municipal prosecutor and a Justice of the Peace allegedly did not permit her to present her case with her infant son present.
The respondents argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction due to prosecutorial immunity.
The Tribunal agreed, finding that the prosecutor's actions were protected by prosecutorial immunity, which extends beyond the core elements of prosecutorial discretion to protect prosecutors from civil liability in the absence of malice.
The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Tribunal has jurisdiction to grant substantive interim remedies but denies request for interim OHIP coverage.
The applicant, an undocumented immigrant, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of citizenship after being denied OHIP coverage.
She requested an interim remedy ordering the Ontario government to provide her with OHIP coverage pending the determination of her application.
The respondent argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to grant substantive interim remedies.
The Tribunal held that s. 16.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act grants it the power to make substantive interim orders.
However, the Tribunal dismissed the request for an interim remedy, finding there was considerable doubt about whether the application fell within its jurisdiction under the ground of citizenship, and noting a lack of immediate urgency that would require a remedy before addressing the jurisdictional issue.
Human rights application placed in abeyance for one year on consent of the parties.
The applicant union and respondent city consented to place the human rights application in abeyance.
The Tribunal ordered that no further steps be taken for up to one year, after which the application may be dismissed as abandoned if neither party communicates with the Tribunal.
Six human rights applications dismissed as abandoned after parties failed to communicate with Tribunal.
The applicant filed six applications with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.
In a previous interim decision, the Tribunal stated it would take no further steps for one year unless contacted by a party, and that the applications could be dismissed as withdrawn if no communication was received.
As no party communicated with the Tribunal by the deadline, the applications were dismissed.
Tribunal directed parties to file written submissions on s. 45.1 dismissal and notified potential interveners.
The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario issued an interim decision regarding an application that raised significant issues about the interpretation of s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code in the context of labour arbitration decisions.
The Tribunal directed the parties to file written legal submissions on these issues two weeks prior to a scheduled telephone hearing.
The Tribunal also directed that a copy of the decision be sent to the Ontario Human Rights Commission and the Ontario Labour-Management Arbitrators' Association to allow them or other organizations to request intervener status.
Tribunal issued case management orders setting deadlines for document disclosure and exchange of will-say statements.
The Tribunal issued an interim decision following a case management call, ordering the Ontario Human Rights Commission to provide its investigation file to the parties.
The Tribunal also set deadlines for the parties to disclose arguably relevant documents, including those related to a 'neighbour incident' and communications with the OPP, and to exchange will-say statements, documents to be relied upon, and statements of position regarding the alleged Human Rights Code violations and requested remedies.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to Notice of Intent to Dismiss.
The applicant filed an application alleging reprisal under section 8 of the Human Rights Code.
The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction as it did not allege reprisal for asserting Code rights.
The applicant failed to respond to the Notice within the required 30 days.
Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.
Tribunal directs parties to file submissions on whether application is barred by delay or prior arbitration.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.
The Tribunal noted that the applicant had previously filed a grievance relating to the same events, which was dismissed at arbitration.
The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the parties to file written legal submissions on whether the application is barred by delay under s. 34 of the Code or should be dismissed under s. 45.1 due to the prior arbitration decision.
The Tribunal also notified potential interveners.
Human rights application dismissed after applicant failed to provide accurate contact information for the respondent.
The applicant filed an application with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario but failed to provide accurate contact information for the respondent.
The Tribunal's interim decision was returned as 'moved/unknown'.
Despite being granted an extension to locate the respondent, the applicant did not provide an updated address.
The application was dismissed pursuant to Rule 6.6(b) of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.
Human rights application dismissed on the joint request of the parties.
The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondents.
Pursuant to section 45.9(2) of the Human Rights Code and on the joint request of the parties, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario issued a final order dismissing the application.
Human rights complaint withdrawn with leave of the Tribunal.
The complainant sought to withdraw her human rights complaint against the Ministry of Children and Youth Services.
The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario granted leave and the complaint was withdrawn.
Application alleging discrimination by a judge dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond.
The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code alleging discrimination based on a judge's decision.
The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, indicating that it lacked jurisdiction to hear applications against courts and tribunals due to the doctrine of judicial immunity.
The applicant was required to file written submissions within 30 days but failed to respond.
Human rights application alleging discriminatory police arrest dismissed at summary hearing for lacking reasonable prospect of success.
The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of ethnic origin and disability following his arrest by police for domestic assault.
The Tribunal held a summary hearing under Rule 19A to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.
The Tribunal found no evidence linking the police's actions to the applicant's ethnic origin or disability, noting the arrest was based on family complaints and police observations.
The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.
Application regarding special diet allowance directed to follow established lead case procedure.
The applicant filed an Application relating to the special diet allowance under Ontario's social assistance programs.
The Tribunal directed that the Application be treated in accordance with the 'lead case' procedure established in Ball v. Ontario (Community and Social Services), unless the parties provide compelling reasons not to do so.
Tribunal has jurisdiction to extend time for compliance with remedial orders; functus officio does not bar extension.
The Ontario Human Rights Commission sought reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that extended the period for the respondent government to comply with an order regarding special diet benefits.
The Commission argued that the Tribunal was functus officio and lacked the power to extend the compliance period.
The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the doctrine of functus officio does not restrict administrative tribunals more than courts, and that the Tribunal has the power to extend time periods for compliance with ordered remedies, similar to the Supreme Court of Canada in Charter cases.
Application alleging discrimination in ODSP income deduction rates dismissed for failing to show differential treatment.
The applicant, a recipient of Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) benefits, alleged that the deduction of his Canada Pension Plan Disability (CPP-D) benefits at a rate of 100%, compared to the 50% deduction rate for employment earnings, constituted discrimination on the basis of disability.
The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to show differential treatment on a prohibited ground.
Because all ODSP recipients are persons with disabilities, the differential treatment of income sources did not have a differential impact on the applicant compared to persons with other disabilities or without disabilities.
Commission's request for reconsideration of jurisdictional dismissal denied; failure to refer complaint before statutory deadline fatal.
The Ontario Human Rights Commission requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found a complaint was outside its jurisdiction because it was not referred before the statutory deadline.
The Commission argued the decision must be correct on jurisdictional questions, denied natural justice, and misapprehended material facts.
The Tribunal dismissed the request, noting that reconsideration is not an appeal or an opportunity to reargue a case, and that the Commission's administrative oversight in failing to communicate the referral before December 31, 2008, meant the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction.
Human rights applications deferred pending conclusion of concurrent civil action due to significant factual overlap.
The applicants, former employees of the respondent, filed human rights applications alleging discrimination and harassment related to pregnancy, which they claimed forced their resignation.
The respondent organization had previously commenced a civil action against the applicants alleging misuse of confidential information.
The respondents requested that the human rights applications be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code or deferred.
The Tribunal declined to dismiss the applications as the civil action had not dealt with the substance of the human rights issues.
However, the Tribunal ordered that the applications be deferred pending the conclusion of the civil action due to the significant factual overlap regarding the events leading up to the resignations.