Human rights application dismissed for delay as it was filed outside the one-year statutory limit.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination regarding the denial of sick leave benefits.
The respondents requested that the application be dismissed for delay.
The Tribunal found that the application was filed more than one year after the incident and that the applicant failed to show the delay was incurred in good faith.
The application was dismissed as being outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.
Pregnancy harassment found but dismissal upheld due to objective performance issues.
The applicant alleged she was harassed and discriminated against on the basis of pregnancy by her supervisor, that the employer failed to investigate her complaints, and that her pregnancy was a factor in her dismissal.
The Tribunal found that the supervisor made discriminatory comments constituting harassment, but dismissed the allegations regarding the failure to investigate and the discriminatory dismissal, finding the dismissal was based on objective performance issues.
The Tribunal awarded $4,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and ordered the employer to amend its policies and the supervisor to complete human rights training.
Interim injunctive relief extended pending final determination of issues by an arbitrator.
The applicant requested an extension of an interim order previously granted by the Tribunal.
The parties had agreed to settle a related court application and have the issues determined by an arbitrator, and the respondents agreed not to oppose reasonable extensions of the injunctive relief.
The Tribunal granted the request, extending the order for 60 days with automatic 60-day renewals until the arbitrator makes a final ruling, unless opposed by either party.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to file directed submissions.
The respondent made a Request for Order, and the applicant was directed to file full and complete written submissions in response.
The applicant failed to do so and did not respond to a subsequent letter from the Registrar warning that the application may be dismissed as abandoned.
The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.
Human rights complaint withdrawn with leave of the Tribunal.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 to withdraw the complaint.
The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario granted leave and the complaint was withdrawn.
The complainant requested to withdraw her human rights complaint against the respondents.
Request to intervene granted on consent.
The ARCH Disability Law Centre filed a Request to Intervene in the proceeding.
On consent of the parties, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario granted the request, limiting the intervention as set out in the Request.
Application dismissed for abuse of process and applicant declared a vexatious litigant due to abusive communications.
The respondents requested that the application be dismissed for abuse of process and that the applicant be declared a vexatious litigant.
The applicant had filed numerous applications under two different names and repeatedly used highly inappropriate, disrespectful, and abusive language toward the respondents, their counsel, and the Tribunal, despite signing an undertaking not to do so.
The Tribunal found that allowing the application to continue would be an abuse of process.
The application was dismissed, and the applicant was declared a vexatious litigant, requiring him to obtain leave before filing any future applications.
Human rights application regarding accessible transit frequency dismissed; municipality accommodated to the point of undue hardship.
The applicant, who uses a motorized wheelchair, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability regarding the frequency of accessible bus service provided by the respondent municipality.
When the respondent increased overall bus service frequency to 20 minutes, it did not have enough low floor buses to provide 20-minute accessible service, resulting in accessible service remaining at 40-minute intervals.
The Tribunal found prima facie discrimination but concluded the respondent had accommodated the applicant to the point of undue hardship.
The Tribunal considered the respondent's ongoing fleet replacement program, the cost and delay in acquiring new low floor buses, and the availability of alternative transit services, ultimately dismissing the application.
Request for anonymization and publication ban dismissed as circumstances did not override open justice principles.
The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to have his name anonymized in Tribunal decisions, a publication ban, and a closed hearing.
He cited cultural reasons, family pressure, privacy of health information, and fear of harassment.
The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the circumstances did not justify overriding the fundamental principles of open justice and freedom of expression.
Unopposed request by UFCW Canada to intervene in human rights proceeding granted.
UFCW Canada filed an unopposed request to intervene in the proceeding.
The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario granted the request and granted UFCW Canada leave to intervene.
Jurisdictional issue deferred for oral hearing; request to add proposed respondent denied due to delay.
The applicant filed a human rights application against his employer, Bell Technical Solutions Inc., alleging discrimination on the basis of disability.
The respondent requested dismissal, arguing its labour relations fall under exclusive federal jurisdiction.
The applicant also requested to add Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada as a respondent regarding short-term disability benefits.
The Tribunal deferred the jurisdictional issue, ordering an oral hearing with a full factual record.
The Tribunal dismissed the request to add Sun Life due to a 15-month delay that was not incurred in good faith.
Ontario Human Rights Commission granted leave to intervene on consent.
The Ontario Human Rights Commission filed a Request to Intervene in the proceeding.
As the request was unopposed by the applicant and consented to by the respondents, the Tribunal granted the Commission leave to intervene.
Human rights complaint withdrawn on consent with leave of the Tribunal.
The complainant sought to withdraw her human rights complaint on consent.
Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over complaint referred by Commission after statutory deadline due to administrative oversight.
The Ontario Human Rights Commission decided to refer a human rights complaint to the Tribunal in December 2008 but failed to communicate this decision to the Tribunal until April 2010 due to an administrative oversight.
Under the transitional provisions of the amended Human Rights Code, the Commission's authority to refer complaints expired on December 31, 2008.
The Tribunal held that a referral under section 36 of the old Code requires not only a decision to refer but also communication of that decision to the Tribunal.
Because the referral was not communicated before the statutory deadline, the Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the complaint.
Tribunal declined to dismiss late-filed application at preliminary stage, finding jurisdiction not plainly ousted.
The applicant filed a human rights application more than one year after the last alleged incident of discrimination.
The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the application for delay.
Upon reviewing the application and the reasons for the delay, the Tribunal concluded it was not plain and obvious that it lacked jurisdiction.
The Tribunal directed that the application proceed, without making a final determination on jurisdiction.
Human rights application regarding condominium parking deferred to ongoing Condominium Act arbitration with interim status quo order.
The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability regarding the boundaries of her condominium parking unit, which she claimed needed to be larger to accommodate her walker.
The respondent condominium corporation had already commenced mediation and arbitration proceedings under section 132 of the Condominium Act regarding the parking boundaries.
The Tribunal deferred the human rights application pending the completion of the Condominium Act arbitration, noting that the arbitrator has the jurisdiction to apply the Human Rights Code.
As a term of the deferral, the Tribunal ordered that the applicant be allowed to continue parking in her current space for 60 days to maintain the status quo until the arbitrator could consider any request for interim relief.
Unopposed request by the Ontario Human Rights Commission to intervene on a jurisdictional issue granted.
Following an unsuccessful mediation, the Tribunal scheduled a hearing to determine whether the applicant's allegations fall under provincial jurisdiction pursuant to the division of powers.
The Ontario Human Rights Commission filed an unopposed Request to Intervene to make submissions on this jurisdictional issue.
The Tribunal granted the Commission leave to intervene.