Two human rights applications ordered to be heard together on consent.
The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario issued an interim decision on consent of the parties, ordering that two applications under section 34 of the Human Rights Code be heard together.
The hearing was scheduled to commence on November 12, 2009.
Respondents given final deadline to file Response to human rights application before Tribunal proceeds without them.
The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondents.
The respondents failed to file a Response within the required 35-day period.
The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondents that failure to participate could lead to orders against them without their participation, pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.
The respondents were given a final deadline to file a Response and explain the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice.
Human rights application against hospital dismissed as it was not liable for independent physicians' patient questionnaires.
The applicant alleged that the respondent Hospital discriminated against him by participating in a task force that distributed a questionnaire to prospective patients of newly recruited family physicians.
The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had no reasonable prospect of success.
The Tribunal found that the Hospital could not be held vicariously liable for the actions of the independent task force or the physicians, who operated their practices independently.
Furthermore, merely asking questions related to Code grounds on a questionnaire is not a violation in itself.
The application was dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.
Human rights proceedings stayed pending resolution of child protection proceedings regarding applicant's custody and litigation guardian.
The applicant, a minor, brought human rights complaints through his mother as litigation guardian.
The Children's Aid Society obtained interim custody of the applicant and sought permanent Crown wardship.
The respondents and the Society argued the mother should not continue as litigation guardian and sought to suspend the human rights proceedings until the custody issue was resolved.
The Tribunal found that the ongoing child protection litigation and uncertainty over permanent custody were significant factors in determining the appropriate litigation guardian.
The Tribunal ordered a stay of the human rights proceedings for up to one year pending the completion of the child protection proceedings.
Respondent granted final extension to file response to human rights application before proceeding without notice.
The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.
The respondent failed to file a response within the required 35-day period.
The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondent to file a response by a final deadline, warning that failure to do so could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming the respondent to have accepted the allegations.
Adjournment request due to change of counsel dismissed as not constituting extraordinary circumstances.
The respondent requested an adjournment of a preliminary hearing scheduled for November 12, 2009, citing a recent change in in-house counsel and the need to retain outside counsel.
The Tribunal dismissed the request, noting that a change of counsel is not generally considered an extraordinary circumstance justifying an adjournment, and the respondent had sufficient time to retain counsel before the hearing.
Adjournment granted due to exceptional circumstances involving the illness of a key witness's spouse.
The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates because a key witness was unavailable due to their spouse's illness and upcoming surgery.
The applicant opposed the request, citing the Tribunal's policy discouraging adjournments.
The Tribunal found that the circumstances constituted exceptional circumstances justifying an adjournment.
The hearing dates were cancelled and ordered to be rescheduled, with filing deadlines extended accordingly.
Applicant permitted to file reprisal application without completing supplemental form, subject to answering specific questions.
The applicant sought to file a human rights application alleging reprisal without completing a supplemental form or identifying a social area of discrimination in section 6 of the application form.
Relying on previous Tribunal jurisprudence, the adjudicator held that given the nature of the reprisal allegations, the applicant was not required to complete section 6 or a supplemental form, provided she answered specific questions regarding to whom she complained and whether there was an investigation.
Request to expedite human rights application denied for failing to meet the high threshold for urgency.
The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of family status following the termination of her employment.
She also filed a Request to Expedite the Application, citing financial hardship, stress, and difficulty finding new employment.
The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the circumstances did not meet the high threshold for urgency and noting that the applicant had waited almost four months before filing the application.
Human rights application against federal government respondents dismissed for lack of provincial jurisdiction.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination during a vocational rehabilitation program.
The Tribunal previously directed the applicant to provide submissions on whether it had jurisdiction over the Government of Canada and its employee, Carol Knowles, regarding the administration of the Canada Pension Plan Disability Vocational Rehabilitation Program.
The applicant did not file a reply.
The Tribunal concluded that the actions of the federal respondents fell outside provincial jurisdiction and dismissed the application against them.
Tribunal issues procedural orders on consent regarding mediation of transit accessibility applications.
The Ontario Human Rights Commission filed applications against three municipalities alleging that the failure to call out all stops on municipal transit buses is discriminatory.
At a case conference, the municipalities provided updates on the implementation of automated stop announcement systems.
The Tribunal issued consent orders granting intervenor status to the respective transit unions and setting a schedule for the parties to discuss resolution and potentially engage in Tribunal mediation.
Human rights application withdrawn with leave of the Tribunal on consent.
The applicant requested leave to withdraw the human rights application during a conference call.
The respondents consented to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.
Applicant directed to confirm intent to proceed; interim publication ban and sealing order granted.
The respondent filed a Request for Order to dismiss the human rights application.
The applicant failed to provide submissions in response.
The Tribunal directed the applicant to advise whether he intends to pursue the application, failing which it may be dismissed as abandoned.
The Tribunal also converted the upcoming hearing to a conference call to address preliminary issues, including jurisdiction and whether the application should be dismissed due to a prior Ontario Court of Justice decision.
An interim order was issued anonymizing the applicant and sealing the file pursuant to the Child and Family Services Act.
Request for reconsideration dismissed; eight-day delay in settlement payment deemed too minor to proceed.
The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision dismissing his breach of settlement application as abandoned.
The alleged breach was an eight-day delay in receiving a settlement payment.
The applicant claimed he did not receive an email from the Tribunal requesting confirmation of his intent to proceed.
The Tribunal found the email was properly sent to the address provided by the applicant.
Given the minor nature of the alleged breach, which was rectified immediately upon the application being filed, the Tribunal concluded there was no reason to override the public interest in the finality of decisions and dismissed the request for reconsideration.
Request to expedite human rights application denied as fear of job loss did not establish urgency.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination and requested that the matter be expedited due to her fear of losing her job.
The Tribunal reviewed the request under its Rules of Procedure and determined that the applicant's concerns, while sincere, did not meet the high threshold of urgency required to prioritize the application over other matters.
The request to expedite was denied.
Tribunal declined to dismiss application at preliminary stage, finding jurisdiction not plainly ousted.
The applicant filed a human rights application against the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board and one of its adjudicators.
The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, questioning whether the Application related to an adjudication by another statutory body.
Applying the principles from Zaki v. Ontario, the Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the matter fell outside its jurisdiction.
The Tribunal directed that the Application continue to be processed.
Adjudicative decisions of statutory tribunals are not 'services' under the Human Rights Code.
The applicant alleged discrimination by the Ministry of Community and Social Services regarding the termination of his Mandatory Special Necessities benefits, and by the Social Benefits Tribunal (SBT) regarding its adjudicative decision upholding the termination.
The SBT and its Acting Chair requested that the application against them be dismissed.
The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario held that while the provision of benefits by the Ministry constitutes a 'service' under the Human Rights Code, the adjudicative decisions of the SBT do not.
Consequently, the application against the SBT and its Acting Chair was dismissed, but the application against the Ministry was allowed to proceed.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant refused to participate in Tribunal process.
The applicant filed a human rights application but subsequently refused to participate in the Tribunal's process or communicate with the Tribunal, citing an intention to seek judicial review of an earlier interim decision.
The Tribunal noted that an application for judicial review does not automatically stay proceedings and that the applicant had not served a Notice of Application.
Given the applicant's clear refusal to participate, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.
Human rights application dismissed as out of time; lack of legal representation does not establish good faith delay.
The applicant filed a human rights application against her union more than one year after the last alleged incident of discrimination.
The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss due to the delay.
The applicant argued the delay was due to lack of legal representation and fear of fees.
The Tribunal found that these reasons did not establish good faith under section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code, noting the applicant had been able to commence other legal proceedings against the employer and the union during the delay period.
The application was dismissed.
Human rights application dismissed for delay as applicant failed to establish good faith.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination after a Crown attorney failed to charge another individual with perjury.
The application was filed more than one year after the last alleged incident.
The applicant failed to provide submissions or establish that the delay was incurred in good faith, stating only that he was 'mixed up with dates'.
The Tribunal found the applicant did not act with due diligence and dismissed the application.