Unopposed request for production of documents from concurrent civil action granted with modifications.
The respondents filed an unopposed Request for Order seeking production of documents related to the applicant's concurrent civil action arising from a motor vehicle accident.
The Tribunal found the documents arguably relevant due to overlapping issues regarding the applicant's physical restrictions.
The Tribunal ordered the applicant to produce the requested documents, modifying the order to exclude documents produced by the defendant in the civil action to avoid violating the deemed undertaking rule.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to Tribunal communications.
The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's attempts to schedule a conference call regarding whether the application had a reasonable prospect of success.
After being warned that failure to respond would result in the application being deemed abandoned, the applicant still did not respond.
The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario dismissed the application as abandoned.
School board's head lice policy does not constitute discrimination on the basis of age or disability.
The applicant, an elementary school student, alleged that the respondent school board's policies regarding pediculosis (head lice) discriminated against her on the basis of age and perceived disability.
The school board's policy required students with head lice to be removed from the classroom until treated, and involved head checks in elementary but not secondary schools.
The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that head lice is a common, easily treated ailment that does not constitute a disability under the Human Rights Code.
Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the differential treatment of elementary school students regarding head checks was based on the greater prevalence of lice in that age group and developmental differences, rather than stereotyping or prejudice, and therefore did not amount to age discrimination.
Adjournment granted due to concerns over whether the applicant received the Notice of Hearing.
The applicant sought an adjournment of the scheduled hearing on the basis that he did not receive the Notice of Hearing and required more time to prepare.
The respondent opposed the adjournment, citing business interruptions and potential witness unavailability.
The Tribunal granted the adjournment, noting concerns about whether the applicant received appropriate notice, and directed that the hearing be rescheduled for September 2010 or later.
Application disposed of and file closed following execution of settlement agreement despite applicant's attempted revocation.
The parties executed Minutes of Settlement and a Form 25 to resolve the human rights application.
The applicant subsequently attempted to revoke his authorization on the Form 25, arguing he had not had proper opportunity to review the offer.
The Tribunal found that the matter was settled, noting that a party generally cannot revoke a signature on a settlement.
The application was finally disposed of and the file closed.
Landlord's agent found to have harassed tenant using homophobic slurs and derogatory comments about social assistance.
The applicant, a tenant in a rooming house, alleged harassment and discrimination based on sexual orientation and receipt of public assistance by the landlord and its agents.
The Tribunal found that the landlord's agent, Mr. Perruccio, used homophobic slurs and made derogatory comments about the applicant's receipt of social assistance during a dispute over property repairs.
The application was allowed in part, with the Tribunal awarding $850 in general damages and ordering human rights training and the development of a human rights policy.
Counsel removed for failing to respond to Tribunal directions; Commission given 60 days to contact complainants.
The Tribunal issued an Interim Decision regarding the failure of the complainants' counsel to respond to a previous Case Assessment Direction.
The Tribunal removed the counsel from the record.
The Ontario Human Rights Commission was given 60 days to contact the complainants and provide their current contact information to the Tribunal, failing which the complaints would be dismissed as abandoned.
Reconsideration of interim decision on jurisdiction dismissed; Human Rights Code applies to police services.
The respondents requested reconsideration of an interim decision finding that the Tribunal had jurisdiction over the matter.
They argued the decision was inconsistent with the Supreme Court of Canada's ruling in Scowby v. Glendinning.
The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that section 1 of the Human Rights Code is valid provincial legislation relating to property and civil rights, and that the doctrines of paramountcy and interjurisdictional immunity do not prevent its application to the civil consequences of arrests or detentions by police.
Tribunal conditionally grants Ontario Human Rights Commission leave to intervene in special diet allowance applications.
The Ontario Human Rights Commission sought leave to intervene in multiple applications relating to the special diet allowance under Ontario Works and the Ontario Disability Support Program.
The respondent Ministry consented to the intervention.
The Tribunal waived the requirement for the Commission to file formal Requests to Intervene and granted the request conditionally, allowing any party to object within two weeks.
Tribunal grants government extension to implement new nutritional supplement program to comply with human rights order.
The respondent requested an extension of time to implement a future compliance remedy ordered by the Tribunal regarding special diet benefits.
The government announced the elimination of the Special Diet Allowance and the creation of a new nutritional supplement program, requiring 9-12 months to implement.
The Tribunal found it had jurisdiction under its general remedial powers to extend the time limit without treating the request as a reconsideration.
The Tribunal granted the extension to April 13, 2011, finding it consistent with remedial principles to allow the government a reasonable period to implement comprehensive policy changes to achieve Code compliance.
Human rights complaint regarding special diet allowance withdrawn with leave of the Tribunal.
The complainant sought to withdraw her human rights complaint regarding the special diet allowance.
The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario granted leave to withdraw the complaint based on correspondence from counsel to the Commission.
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 this Application be treated in accordance with the 'lead case' procedure established for similar special diet allowance cases, unless the applicant provides compelling reasons not to do so within two weeks.
Human rights application dismissed under s. 34(11) due to duplicative civil action commenced after application.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and failure to accommodate.
She subsequently commenced a civil action in the Superior Court of Justice raising the same facts and seeking damages for failure to accommodate, harassment, and discrimination.
The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under s. 34(11) of the Human Rights Code.
The Tribunal held that s. 34(11) applies to bar an application where a civil action is commenced either before or after the application is filed.
The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Human rights application placed in abeyance by agreement of the parties.
By agreement of the parties, the Tribunal ordered that no steps would be taken in the matter unless contacted by one of the parties.
The Tribunal noted that if no party contacts the Tribunal by May 13, 2011, the application may be dismissed as abandoned.
Request to expedite human rights application denied as financial and emotional stress do not constitute true urgency.
The applicant, a person with a disability, filed a request to expedite her human rights application after the respondent agency suspended her funded personal care services.
She argued that finding alternative care caused stress and financial cost.
The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant was still receiving necessary services privately and that emotional and financial stress do not meet the high standard of true urgency required to expedite a proceeding.
Tribunal scheduled a preliminary hearing to determine jurisdiction over a complaint about a newspaper editorial.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that a newspaper editorial discriminated against him on the basis of place of origin with respect to services, by dividing residents into 'locals' and 'imports'.
The Tribunal issued an interim decision scheduling a one-day hearing to determine preliminary questions of jurisdiction and whether the application has a reasonable prospect of success, given the significant legal issues regarding freedom of expression.
Human rights application dismissed as accommodation issues were previously decided and other allegations were out of time.
The applicant, a candidate in the lawyer licensing process who failed the licensing examinations nine times, filed a human rights application alleging failure to accommodate her disabilities and discriminatory comments by Law Society staff.
The respondents requested dismissal under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.
The Tribunal found that the accommodation issues had been appropriately dealt with by the Law Society's Professional Development and Competence Committee and the Divisional Court on judicial review.
The Tribunal also found that the allegations regarding discriminatory comments were filed outside the one-year limitation period without a good faith explanation for the delay.
The application was dismissed.
Interim remedy for payment of Ontario Works benefits denied; notice of intent to defer issued.
The applicant filed applications alleging that the denial of Ontario Works benefits violated the Human Rights Code.
He requested an interim remedy ordering the payment of benefits pending the determination of the issue.
The Tribunal denied the interim remedy, finding it was not necessary to ensure a complete and effective remedy as the applicant had other sources of income and the matter was before the Social Benefits Tribunal.
The Tribunal also issued a notice of intent to defer the applications pending the conclusion of the Social Benefits Tribunal proceedings.
Application deferred pending completion of overlapping WSIB proceedings; preliminary dismissal without oral hearing denied.
The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.
The respondent requested that the application be dismissed on a preliminary basis for failing to establish a prima facie case, or alternatively, deferred pending the completion of WSIB proceedings.
The Tribunal held that it lacked the power to dismiss the application without hearing oral submissions under s. 43(2) of the Human Rights Code.
However, as the applicant consented and there was overlap between the proceedings, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the WSIB proceedings.
Toronto Police Services Board removed as a respondent on consent.
The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario issued an interim decision on consent of the parties to remove the Toronto Police Services Board as a respondent.
The style of cause was amended accordingly.