Complainant ordered to explain failure to attend conference call or face dismissal of complaint.
The complainant failed to attend a scheduled pre-hearing conference call.
The Tribunal issued an interim decision noting the seriousness of human rights applications and the obligation of parties to comply with Tribunal directions.
The complainant was ordered to advise the Tribunal in writing by a specified date whether he wished to pursue his complaint and to explain his absence, failing which the complaint may be dismissed as abandoned.
Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to proceed with application stayed by Superior Court receivership order.
The applicant sought to proceed with his human rights application despite a Superior Court receivership order staying proceedings against the respondents.
The applicant requested the Tribunal to compel the receiver to respond to a settlement offer and consent to the application.
The Tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to disregard the Superior Court's order and required the applicant to commence a motion in the Superior Court to lift the stay, failing which the application would be dismissed.
Adjournment request denied; retaining unavailable counsel after hearing scheduled does not justify delay.
The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing after retaining counsel who was unavailable on the hearing date.
The Tribunal denied the request, noting that retaining counsel after a hearing is scheduled does not justify an adjournment absent exceptional circumstances.
The respondent also requested that the application be dismissed on a preliminary basis prior to the hearing.
The Tribunal directed that the preliminary issue be dealt with at the scheduled hearing.
Tribunal denies stay of production order for police discipline records pending judicial review.
The moving parties sought a stay of an interim Tribunal decision ordering the production of police discipline records pending their application for judicial review.
The Tribunal applied the traditional three-part test for a stay, considering it in the context of the revised Human Rights Code, which emphasizes expeditious resolution and limits judicial review of procedural rulings.
The Tribunal found that producing the records to the adjudicator would not cause irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience strongly favoured proceeding without delay.
The request for a stay was denied, though a brief extension was granted to allow the moving parties to seek a stay from the Divisional Court.
Request to expedite dismissed; financial hardship and stress do not constitute sufficient urgency.
The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination in employment and requested that the proceedings be expedited due to financial hardship and stress resulting from his dismissal.
The Tribunal dismissed the request to expedite, noting that financial hardship and stress alone do not constitute sufficient urgency compared to other employment dismissal cases to justify expedited proceedings.
Requests to expedite and for interim reinstatement dismissed; delay in filing and lack of necessity cited.
The applicant, whose employment was terminated, filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and age, and reprisal.
She also filed requests to expedite the proceeding and for an interim remedy of reinstatement.
The Tribunal dismissed the request to expedite, noting the applicant's three-month delay in filing and the lack of exceptional urgency.
The Tribunal also dismissed the request for an interim remedy, finding that interim reinstatement was not necessary to ensure a complete and effective remedy at the end of a hearing, as the applicant could be reinstated with back pay if successful on the merits.
Human rights application alleging racial discrimination and failure to investigate dismissed for lack of evidence.
The applicant, a former machine operator, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, and reprisal.
He claimed that the plant manager used racist slurs, that the employer's response to his workplace safety complaints and subsequent discipline were discriminatory, and that the employer failed to investigate his allegations of discrimination.
The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the allegations of racist name-calling to be untrue.
The Tribunal also found no evidence that the employer's response to the safety dispute or the discipline imposed was discriminatory, and concluded that the applicant's statements during the safety dispute did not trigger a duty to investigate further.
Human rights application dismissed; failure to secure new position was due to poor test scores, not racial discrimination.
The applicant, a Black lab support assistant, alleged racial discrimination after her position was eliminated during restructuring and she failed to secure other positions through bumping or applying.
The employer provided evidence that she lacked the required certification for lab positions and scored significantly lower than other candidates on standardized clerical tests.
The Tribunal found no circumstantial evidence that race was a factor in the employer's decisions, concluding that the applicant's lack of qualifications and poor test scores were the true reasons for her not obtaining the positions.
The application was dismissed.
Tribunal directed applicant to provide submissions on jurisdiction regarding human rights complaint over child wardship order.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the respondent Children's Aid Society based on a court order making her son a Crown ward and the care he received in custody.
The Tribunal issued an interim decision raising serious questions about its jurisdiction to review court decisions, address the treatment of a child not in the applicant's custody, and consider the ground of receipt of public assistance in the context of services.
The applicant was directed to provide written submissions explaining how the Tribunal has jurisdiction over her allegations before the matter proceeds.
Human rights application withdrawn with leave of the Tribunal on consent of the responding parties.
The applicant requested leave to withdraw their human rights application filed under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.
The respondent hospital and personal respondents consented to the withdrawal, while the other respondents made no submissions.
The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.
Leave granted to withdraw human rights application on consent.
The applicant requested leave to withdraw their human rights application pursuant to Rule 10 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.
The respondents either consented or made no submissions.
Human rights application withdrawn with leave of the Tribunal.
The applicant requested leave to withdraw their human rights application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.
The respondents made no submissions on the request.
Applicant ordered to comply with disclosure rules and confirm intent to proceed or face dismissal.
The applicant failed to attend the originally scheduled hearing and subsequently failed to file a list of documents and witnesses as required by the Tribunal's Rules.
The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the applicant to confirm his intention to proceed and to file the required materials by a specified date, warning that failure to comply could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.
Interim requests for early document production and to hold a position open dismissed.
The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking early production of e-mails and an order preventing the respondent from filling his former position pending the hearing.
The Tribunal dismissed the request for early production as premature, noting that failure to preserve relevant data could result in an adverse inference.
The Tribunal also dismissed the request to hold the position open, finding that filling the position would not preclude a future reinstatement order if a Code violation is found.
Request to expedite granted; interim remedy for immediate full-time school integration dismissed for lack of evidence.
The applicant, an eight-year-old boy with disabilities, sought an interim remedy to compel the respondent school board to immediately transition him to a full-time grade three program with specific accommodations, rather than the one hour per day currently offered.
The Tribunal granted the request to expedite the proceedings due to the urgency of the child's educational situation and the risk of developmental regression.
However, the Tribunal dismissed the request for an interim remedy, finding that the expert evidence provided did not establish that a rapid transition to full-time schooling was in the applicant's best interests or would effectively accommodate his disabilities.
Human rights application remains stayed against all respondents pursuant to Superior Court receivership order.
The applicant advised the Tribunal of his intention to continue his human rights application against certain respondents, despite a previous interim decision staying the application pursuant to a Superior Court receivership order.
The Tribunal clarified that the receivership order explicitly prevents proceedings against any of the respondents, including the operator and agents, without the written consent of the receiver or leave of the Court.
The applicant was granted a further fourteen days to advise the Tribunal of his intentions, failing which the application may be deemed abandoned.
Applicant permitted to file revised human rights application after inadvertently submitting a draft.
The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code but subsequently advised it was a draft sent in error.
The applicant requested an order to amend the Application.
The respondent argued the applicant should withdraw the Application and noted outstanding grievances on the same issues, suggesting deferral.
The Tribunal directed the applicant to file a revised Application, including her position on deferral, and relieved the respondent from taking further steps until further directions are given.
Human rights application withdrawn with the authorization of the Tribunal.
The applicant requested permission to withdraw her application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, pursuant to Rule 10 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.
The respondent did not file any written submissions.
The Tribunal granted the request and permitted the application to be withdrawn.
Request to dismiss application against personal respondent prior to Case Resolution Conference denied.
The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to dismiss the human rights application against the personal respondent prior to the Case Resolution Conference.
The Tribunal dismissed the request, noting that preliminary matters in section 53(3) applications are best dealt with at the Case Resolution Conference, as such applications are designed to be highly expeditious.
Adjournment denied where respondent retained counsel with a scheduling conflict after the hearing was set.
The respondent requested an extension of time to file documents and an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because its newly retained counsel had a scheduling conflict.
The applicant opposed the adjournment, noting she and her witnesses had already made arrangements to attend.
The Tribunal granted the extension of time but denied the adjournment, holding that retaining counsel after a hearing is scheduled is not an extraordinary circumstance justifying an adjournment, and that the applicant would be prejudiced by the delay.