Using local time zone date of birth for school admission is not discrimination based on place of origin.
The applicant, born in Hong Kong on January 1, 2006 (local time), sought admission to junior kindergarten.
At the exact moment of his birth, it was December 31, 2005, in Ontario.
The school board denied admission because eligibility required a 2005 birth year as reflected on the birth certificate.
The applicant alleged discrimination based on place of origin.
The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that relying on the local date of birth on a birth certificate does not engage the purposes of the prohibition against discrimination based on place of origin, as time zones do not relate to stereotyping or historical disadvantage.
Human rights application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to prior complaint and statutory body immunity.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the College of Veterinarians of Ontario and the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board after being refused a veterinary license.
The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
The Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction over the HPARB because the Code does not cover the content or results of decisions by other statutory bodies.
The Tribunal also found it lacked jurisdiction over the College because the applicant had previously filed a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission regarding the same subject matter, which is barred under section 53(8) of the Code.
The application was dismissed.
Human rights application dismissed under s. 34(11) due to concurrent civil proceeding alleging Code violations.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment.
The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss under s. 34(11) of the Human Rights Code because the applicant had commenced a civil proceeding seeking damages for wrongful dismissal that included allegations of discrimination.
The applicant argued that he had brought a motion to stay the civil proceeding and amend the statement of claim to remove references to the Code.
The Tribunal held that a motion to stay or amend the civil claim does not prevent the application of s. 34(11), as the civil proceeding had not been finally determined or withdrawn.
The application was dismissed as barred by s. 34(11).
Human rights application regarding criminal conviction and police conduct dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and delay.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on ancestry, disability, and family status regarding his brother's manslaughter conviction, police interrogation, and the conduct of Crown attorneys and the trial judge.
The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.
The Tribunal dismissed the application against the courts and Crown attorneys for lack of jurisdiction, as their actions do not constitute 'services' under the Code.
The application against the police department was dismissed because it was filed five years after the incidents and the applicant failed to show the delay was incurred in good faith.
Human rights application dismissed as out of time because applicant failed to establish good faith delay.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination during a vocational rehabilitation program.
The respondents requested that the application be dismissed as it was filed outside the one-year statutory time limit under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.
The applicant argued the delay was incurred in good faith because he only became aware of the extent of the discrimination after receiving documents through a Freedom of Information request, which exacerbated his mental health condition.
The Tribunal found that the applicant did not establish good faith, as he received the documents well within the limitation period and provided no medical evidence to support his illness-based claim.
Human rights application alleging racial discrimination in child apprehension dismissed as substance dealt with by court.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race and colour by the Children's Aid Society and a child protection worker regarding the apprehension of his children.
The respondents sought to dismiss the application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application had been appropriately dealt with in prior Ontario Court of Justice proceedings.
The Tribunal found that the Court's findings on a summary judgment motion, which concluded there was an overwhelming case that the children were at risk of sexual harm, were inconsistent with the applicant's allegations of racial discrimination.
The Tribunal dismissed the application, concluding that the Court proceeding had appropriately dealt with its substance.
Applicant directed to provide medical documentation for failure to attend hearing and clarify jurisdictional basis.
The applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing for his human rights application alleging discrimination in the termination of his ODSP benefits.
The applicant sent a late email claiming he was too ill to attend due to stress caused by the respondents.
The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the applicant to provide medical documentation substantiating his inability to attend, failing which the application would be dismissed as abandoned.
The Tribunal also directed the applicant to provide written submissions clarifying how his allegations constitute a violation of the Code and fall within the Tribunal's jurisdiction.
Interim remedy denied; hearing scheduled to determine if working during a strike engages creed.
The applicant, a paramedic, alleged discrimination and harassment based on creed after he worked during a 2002 strike.
In this interim decision, the Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene.
The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's request for an interim remedy to be placed in a vacant position on Toronto Island, finding it was not necessary to ensure a complete and effective remedy at the end of the hearing and would override collective agreement rights.
The Tribunal directed a one-day hearing to determine the preliminary issue of whether the alleged events engage the ground of creed under the Code.
Tribunal deferred preliminary jurisdictional challenge regarding alleged discrimination by WSIB adjudicator to full hearing.
The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability by a WSIB claims adjudicator who allegedly made inappropriate comments about the applicant's depression and denied benefits.
The respondents requested the application be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the WSIB has exclusive jurisdiction over matters arising under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act.
The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application at the preliminary stage, noting developing jurisprudence on the application of the Code to statutory decision-makers, and directed the matter to proceed to a hearing where the jurisdictional issue could be fully argued.
Request to add City of Ottawa and Asian Heritage Month Society as respondents granted.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of creed after a Falun Gong booth was cancelled at an Asian Heritage Month event.
The applicant brought a request to add the City of Ottawa and the Ottawa Asian Heritage Month Society as respondents.
The Tribunal applied the test for adding respondents and found that there were allegations that could support a finding of a Code violation against the proposed respondents, noting that unincorporated associations can potentially be liable under the Code.
The request to add the respondents was granted.
Reconsideration request dismissed; adjudicator's prior legal practice does not create reasonable apprehension of bias.
The complainants requested reconsideration of a decision dismissing their human rights complaints based on the transitional provisions of the Human Rights Code.
They alleged a reasonable apprehension of bias because the original adjudicator previously practiced at a management-side labour law firm, and they disputed the Tribunal's statutory interpretation.
The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that an adjudicator's prior legal practice does not create a reasonable apprehension of bias and that reconsideration is not an opportunity to re-argue the merits of the case.
Tribunal directed applicant to provide medical documentation after failing to attend hearing, deferring abandonment dismissal.
The applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing, citing medical reasons at the last minute.
The respondents requested that the application be dismissed as abandoned, noting the lack of medical documentation, the late notice, and the costs incurred.
The Tribunal denied the immediate request for dismissal, instead directing the applicant to provide specific medical documentation from a registered medical practitioner to substantiate his inability to attend.
Failure to comply would result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.
Application withdrawn with leave of the Tribunal upon applicant's request.
The applicant sent an email to the Tribunal requesting to withdraw the application prior to the scheduled hearing.
The Tribunal granted leave to withdraw the application.
Tribunal scheduled a conference call to hear preliminary arguments on delay and s. 45.1 dismissal.
The respondent sought to dismiss an application alleging discrimination on the basis of family status.
The respondent argued the application should be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code because a Grievance Settlement Board decision had already dealt with the substance, and that the application was filed outside the one-year time limit under s. 34.
The Tribunal scheduled a conference call to hear arguments on these two preliminary issues.
Notice of Intent to Dismiss withdrawn as narrative alleged disability discrimination despite checking reprisal box.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging she was laid off due to a lack of work after sustaining injuries in an automobile accident.
She selected reprisal as the ground of discrimination.
The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the narrative did not describe a reprisal under the Code.
However, the Tribunal found the narrative did allege discrimination on the basis of disability.
Concluding it was not plain and obvious that the application was outside its jurisdiction, the Tribunal directed that the application continue to be processed on the ground of disability.
Personal respondents removed and Chief of Police added after undertaking to accept liability.
The complainant and the Commission brought a Request for Order During Proceedings to add further officers as personal respondents.
Following discussions, the Chief of Police undertook to accept liability in the event any liability is found against the named or proposed officers.
Consequently, the parties agreed to withdraw the request, remove all named individual respondents, and add the Chief of Police as a respondent.
The Tribunal ordered the style of cause amended accordingly.
Reprisal application deferred pending completion of related grievance arbitration to avoid duplicative proceedings.
The applicant filed an application alleging reprisal under the Human Rights Code.
The respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the completion of an ongoing grievance arbitration based on related facts.
The Tribunal granted the request, finding that deferral was appropriate to avoid duplicative factual and legal findings, as the issues in the application were closely related to those in the grievance and a previously deferred application.
Application regarding special diet allowance suspended pending final decision in lead cases.
The applicant filed an application relating to the special diet allowance under the Ontario Disability Support Program.
The Tribunal noted that over one hundred similar complaints had been referred and were proceeding under a lead case approach.
The Tribunal ordered that further steps in this application be suspended until a final decision is issued in the lead cases, consistent with its approach in similar matters.
Tribunal re-activates application but schedules hearing to consider dismissal under s. 45.1 of the Code.
The applicant requested to re-activate and expedite her human rights application, and sought production of documents, following a Divisional Court decision on a related judicial review.
The respondents agreed to re-activate but requested dismissal under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance was dealt with in the other proceeding.
The Tribunal ordered the application to proceed, denied the request to expedite, dismissed the production request as premature, and scheduled a half-day oral hearing to hear submissions on the s. 45.1 dismissal request.
Deferred human rights application ordered to proceed after union withdrew related grievance following settlement.
The applicant's human rights application was previously deferred pending the conclusion of a grievance arbitration.
The union subsequently withdrew the grievance after reaching a settlement with the employer.
The applicant, unsatisfied with the resolution, requested that the human rights application proceed.
The respondents argued the matter should not proceed, relying on section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.
The Tribunal ordered the application to proceed and scheduled mediation, noting that any dismissal under section 45.1 would require oral submissions.