Reconsideration request denied as proposed new evidence could have been obtained earlier and was not determinative.
The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application, which alleged his race, colour, or religion was a factor in his dismissal.
He sought reconsideration on the basis of new evidence that the respondent hired a new service person rather than recalling him.
The Tribunal denied the request, finding the evidence could reasonably have been obtained earlier and was not potentially determinative of the case.
Tribunal amended style of cause on consent to substitute corporate respondent.
On consent of all parties, the Tribunal issued an interim decision removing Delta Bingo (St. Clair) Sponsors Association as a respondent and adding Delta Bingo Inc. as a respondent.
The style of cause was amended accordingly.
Request to expedite human rights application regarding LSAT accommodations denied for lack of urgency.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability after his request for accommodation when writing the Law School Admissions Test (LSAT) was denied.
He requested that the Tribunal expedite the application so it could be resolved before the June 2010 test date.
The Tribunal denied the request to expedite, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate truly urgent circumstances or explain why the issues needed to be resolved prior to this specific test date, especially since the scores would be too late for the 2010-2011 academic year.
Request to expedite housing discrimination application denied because the requested unit was already rented.
The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in housing on the basis of disability, citing a hypersensitivity to noise.
He requested to expedite the application because a suitable unit had become available in his building.
The respondent opposed the request, noting the unit was already rented for the upcoming month.
The Tribunal denied the request to expedite, finding that because the unit was already rented, expediting the process would not make the requested remedy available.
The Tribunal directed that mediation be scheduled at the earliest possible date.
Tribunal orders submissions on whether to dismiss application as abuse of process and declare applicant vexatious.
The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.
The respondent City of Toronto requested that the application be dismissed as an abuse of process, alleging the applicant violated an undertaking to treat parties respectfully.
The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the parties to provide written submissions on whether the application should be dismissed as an abuse of process and whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to declare the applicant a vexatious litigant.
Reconsideration request dismissed due to abusive language and insufficient medical evidence explaining failure to attend hearing.
The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application after he failed to attend the hearing.
He provided a new medical note diagnosing him with sleep apnea.
The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the applicant's submissions contained insulting, threatening, and vulgar language that violated his prior undertaking and constituted an abuse of process.
Furthermore, the new medical evidence did not explain the applicant's failure to provide advance notice of his inability to attend.
The respondents' request for costs was dismissed as the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to award costs.
Human rights application deferred pending completion of concurrent WSIB appeals process.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability by a WSIB claims adjudicator who allegedly made inappropriate comments about the applicant's depression while denying benefits for a physical injury.
The Tribunal considered whether to defer the application pending the applicant's ongoing WSIB appeal.
The Tribunal decided to defer the application in its entirety, finding that the issues were intimately linked and that it would be an improper duplication of proceedings to have them run simultaneously.
The Tribunal also cautioned the applicant regarding the use of uncivil and insulting language in his submissions.
Commission's unopposed request to withdraw from the proceeding granted.
The Ontario Human Rights Commission filed an unopposed Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to withdraw from the proceeding without conditions or transition issues.
The Tribunal granted the request.
Joint request for adjournment denied as parties failed to cite exceptional circumstances.
The applicant and respondents jointly requested an adjournment of their scheduled hearing to address outstanding issues.
The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario denied the request, noting that its policies discourage adjournments for settlement discussions absent exceptional circumstances.
The Tribunal also directed the respondent to provide notice of the application to the applicant's employer, Bell Canada, as its interests may be affected, and extended the deadline for document disclosure.
Tribunal issues interim scheduling order and temporary extension for Special Diet Allowance human rights complaints.
The Tribunal issued an interim decision regarding next steps in multiple complaints challenging the Special Diet Allowance under Ontario's social assistance programs.
The Tribunal ordered a schedule for document disclosure and the provision of master lists of disabilities/conditions in issue.
Additionally, the Tribunal granted an interim extension of the suspension period for the respondent to provide special diet benefits for certain conditions, pending a full hearing on the respondent's request for a longer extension.
Tribunal issued an interim decision adding an inadvertently omitted application to a consolidated special diet proceeding.
The Tribunal issued an interim decision to correct an administrative oversight where the applicant's file was inadvertently omitted from the list of files in a previous interim decision (Lawson v. Ontario).
The Tribunal confirmed that this application regarding the Special Diet Allowance will be treated in the same manner as the other section 34 applications.
Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear discrimination claims regarding police arrests under the Criminal Code.
The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of race during an arrest and detention by a police officer.
The respondents brought a motion to dismiss the application, arguing that applying the provincial Human Rights Code to an arrest under the federal Criminal Code would violate the constitutional division of powers.
The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the Code's prohibition on discrimination in services applies to policing and does not impair the core of the federal criminal law power or conflict with the Criminal Code under the doctrines of interjurisdictional immunity or paramountcy.
Leave to withdraw human rights applications granted on consent.
The applicants requested leave to withdraw their applications under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.
The respondents did not object.
The Tribunal granted leave to withdraw the applications and cancelled the scheduled hearing days.
Application dismissed under s. 45.1; substance was appropriately dealt with by Grievance Settlement Board.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of family status.
The respondents requested that the application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application had already been appropriately dealt with by the Grievance Settlement Board (GSB).
The Tribunal found that the human rights issues raised in the application were directly raised before and decided by the GSB following a four-day hearing.
The application was dismissed to avoid re-litigating issues already decided in the grievance process.
Request for reconsideration dismissed for being out of time and lacking new determinative facts.
The applicant requested reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his application for lack of jurisdiction and delay.
The Request for Reconsideration was filed outside the 30-day time limit.
The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no new facts that could not have been obtained earlier and no exceptional circumstances to outweigh the public interest in finality.
Second reconsideration request dismissed; alleged past law firm connections did not create reasonable apprehension of bias.
The applicant filed a second request for reconsideration of a decision dismissing his application.
He alleged a perceived conflict of interest because the responding party's law firm and the former law firm of the Vice-Chair who heard the original application had jointly represented clients in the past.
The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no merit to the allegation as the Vice-Chair had not worked in private practice for over 15 years and the allegation did not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.
Tribunal grants publication ban for sexual assault claimants but requires signed consent for union representation.
The union brought a human rights application on behalf of a group of temporary foreign workers alleging wage discrimination and sexual harassment by the respondents.
In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed preliminary issues.
The Tribunal granted a publication ban and anonymization for claimants alleging sexual assault, but denied the respondents' request to anonymize their own names.
The Tribunal also held that the union could not bring the application on behalf of individuals who had not signed a consent form, as required by section 34(5) of the Human Rights Code, rejecting the union's argument that consent could be inferred from its status as collective bargaining representative.
Claimant in a representative human rights application only needs capacity to delegate and withdraw the application.
The applicant brought a human rights application on behalf of the claimant, a person with an intellectual disability, alleging that the respondent union's picketing during a strike discriminated against her.
The respondent raised the issue of the claimant's mental capacity to instruct counsel and participate in the litigation, arguing a litigation guardian might be required.
The Tribunal held that under section 34(5) of the Human Rights Code, a claimant on whose behalf an application is brought does not need the capacity to make all day-to-day litigation decisions.
Rather, the claimant only needs the capacity to understand the delegation of the power to pursue the application and the decision to withdraw it.
The Tribunal directed further submissions on whether an inquiry into the claimant's capacity was necessary based on this standard.
Application against union dismissed as substance was previously dealt with by OLRB.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging his employer failed to accommodate his disability following a workplace injury, and that his union discriminated against him.
The union requested that the application against it be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the pre-2009 allegations were already addressed in three duty of fair representation complaints before the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB).
The Tribunal agreed, finding the OLRB had appropriately dealt with the substance of the allegations by applying human rights principles.
The Tribunal also dismissed the 2009 allegations, noting that a union's mere failure to file a grievance does not constitute discrimination under the Code.
The application against the union was dismissed, but the union was granted intervenor status.
Human rights application alleging discriminatory termination of autism therapy funding dismissed for lack of evidence.
The applicant, a six-year-old boy with autism, alleged discrimination in services after the respondent terminated his funding for Intensive Behavioural Intervention (IBI) therapy.
The Tribunal held a hearing to determine if the application could succeed.
The Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction to review the clinical correctness of the respondent's discharge decision.
Furthermore, the applicant failed to provide expert evidence demonstrating that the respondent's discharge criteria had a disproportionate negative impact on children with severe autism.
The application was dismissed for failing to meet the burden of proof.