Human rights application alleging discriminatory police investigation dismissed for lack of evidence.
The applicant, an electronics student, ordered components that could be used for detonation.
The police received a tip and investigated the purchase, which included visiting the applicant's mother's home and speaking with the applicant.
The applicant alleged that the police discriminated against him on the basis of ancestry, ethnic origin, disability, and family status.
The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the police were following up on a tip and that there was no evidence that any of the alleged Code grounds played a role in the investigation.
Application regarding special diet allowance suspended pending final decision in related lead cases.
The applicant filed an Application relating to the special diet allowance under the Ontario Disability Support Program.
As over one hundred similar complaints were already before the Tribunal and proceeding under a lead case approach, the Tribunal ordered that no further steps be required in this Application until a final decision is issued in the lead cases, unless the parties provide compelling reasons otherwise.
Request for reconsideration of decision dismissing firefighter mandatory retirement complaints denied.
The Ontario Human Rights Commission sought reconsideration of a Tribunal decision dismissing human rights complaints regarding mandatory retirement for firefighters.
The Commission argued the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence and its own policy on disability and the duty to accommodate.
The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the Commission was attempting to re-litigate issues already fully argued and that there was no established jurisprudence on the specific issues decided.
The Tribunal also noted that the Commission had not raised its policy during the original hearing.
Applicant directed to file submissions on Tribunal's jurisdiction over Landlord and Tenant Board decisions.
The respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to dismiss the human rights application on the basis that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over decisions of the Landlord and Tenant Board.
The adjudicator directed the applicant to file written submissions explaining why the application falls under the Human Rights Code, noting that the content and result of a statutory decision-maker's decision are generally not considered a 'service' under the Code.
Tribunal directed parties to provide submissions on whether claims against two different landlords should be separated.
The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of race, citizenship, disability, and reprisal against two different landlords.
Both respondents requested dismissal under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, relying on different Landlord and Tenant Board decisions.
The Tribunal issued an interim decision raising the issue of whether the claims against the two respondents should be separated to ensure a fair, just, and expeditious resolution, and directed the parties to provide submissions on the matter.
Tribunal suspends proceedings in special diet allowance application pending final decision in lead cases.
The applicant filed an application relating to the special diet allowance under the Ontario Disability Support Program.
As the Tribunal had adopted a lead case approach for over one hundred similar complaints, it ordered that no further steps be required in this application until a final decision is issued in the lead cases, unless compelling reasons are provided.
Application regarding special diet allowance suspended pending final decision in lead cases.
The Tribunal noted that over one hundred similar complaints had been referred and were proceeding under a lead case approach.
The Tribunal ordered that no further steps be required in this application until a final decision is issued in the lead cases, suspending the proceedings.
Human rights application withdrawn with leave of the Tribunal.
The applicant requested leave to withdraw her human rights application filed under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.
The respondents made no submissions on the request.
The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.
Human rights application regarding 1976 dismissal dismissed due to extreme and unjustified 30-year delay.
The applicant sought to file a human rights application regarding his dismissal from employment in 1976, over 30 years after the incident.
The Tribunal considered whether to exercise its discretion under s. 34(2) of the Human Rights Code to accept the late application.
The applicant argued that new evidence and his medical conditions justified the delay.
The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for why the evidence could not have been obtained earlier or why his disabilities prevented him from pursuing his Code rights in a timely manner, especially given his pursuit of other legal remedies.
The Tribunal inferred substantial prejudice to the respondent due to the extreme delay and dismissed the application.
The applicant filed an application relating to the special diet allowance under the Ontario Disability Support Program, requesting deferral pending an appeal to the Social Benefits Tribunal.
The Tribunal noted that over one hundred similar complaints were proceeding under a lead case approach.
The Tribunal ordered that no further steps be required in this application until a final decision is issued in the lead cases, and directed the Registrar to deliver the application to the respondent.
Tribunal sets schedule for submissions on request to defer application pending child protection proceedings.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in the provision of services related to the commencement of child protection proceedings.
The respondent Children's Aid Society of Toronto requested that the application be deferred pending the completion of the ongoing child protection proceedings before the Ontario Court of Justice.
The Tribunal issued an interim decision setting a schedule for the parties to file submissions on the deferral request.
Human rights application withdrawn following settlement between the parties.
The applicant advised the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario that she had resolved her dispute with the respondents.
The respondents confirmed the resolution.
The Tribunal granted leave to withdraw the application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.
Criminal acquittal findings are not binding in human rights proceedings; litigation privilege extends to related complaints.
In an interim decision regarding a human rights complaint alleging racial discrimination by police officers, the Tribunal ruled on preliminary issues.
The Tribunal held that findings of fact made by a criminal court judge in the course of acquitting the complainant could not be relied upon as binding in the human rights proceeding, as an acquittal does not establish facts for subsequent civil matters.
The Tribunal also denied the respondents' request for witness statements taken by the complainant's criminal lawyer, finding they remained protected by litigation privilege because the proceedings were related.
Finally, the Tribunal ordered the limited production of the complainants' medical records and personnel files, subject to strict privacy conditions.
Tribunal directed parties to provide submissions on respondents' request to defer application pending OLRB proceeding.
The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.
He also filed a duty of fair representation complaint with the Ontario Labour Relations Board against the respondent union.
The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the completion of the OLRB proceeding.
The Tribunal directed the parties to provide written submissions on the deferral request.
Tribunal orders police discipline records produced for adjudicative review before disclosure to parties.
In an interim decision, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario addressed requests by the complainant and the Commission for the production of records relating to other complaints of racial discrimination against the personal respondents, who are civilian court officers.
Applying the principles from a concurrent decision, the Tribunal ordered the records produced to the Tribunal for review prior to disclosure to balance probative value against privacy interests.
The Tribunal also ordered the production of officer badge numbers and a photograph of the complainant, but declined to order the production of correctional officers' names due to security concerns.
Tribunal orders police disciplinary records produced for adjudicative review to determine disclosure as similar fact evidence.
The Commission and the complainant sought the production of information in police files about allegations by third parties of discrimination by the respondent police officers.
The complainant alleged discrimination on the basis of colour, creed, place of origin, and race, including physical assaults and harassment.
The Tribunal considered the application of the Supreme Court's decision in R. v. McNeil regarding the production of police disciplinary records.
The Tribunal found that the requested records were arguably relevant as similar fact evidence.
To balance the potential probative value against the prejudicial effects and privacy interests of the officers and third-party complainants, the Tribunal ordered the Chief of Police to produce the records to the Tribunal for review prior to determining whether they should be disclosed to the parties.
Human rights application regarding special diet allowance suspended pending final decision in Tribunal lead cases.
The applicant filed a human rights application relating to the special diet allowance under the Ontario Disability Support Program, requesting deferral pending an appeal to the Social Benefits Tribunal.
Noting that over one hundred similar complaints had been referred to the Tribunal and were proceeding under a lead case approach, the adjudicator ordered that no further steps be required in this application until a final decision is issued in the lead cases.
The application was suspended accordingly.
Reconsideration request dismissed as untimely and based on non-determinative evidence.
The complainant sought reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision dismissing his human rights complaint against the City of London.
He argued that new evidence obtained through a freedom of information request supported his version of events.
The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding it was filed outside the 30-day time limit without a valid reason.
Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the new evidence was not determinative of the central issue of whether race was a factor in the incident, and could have reasonably been obtained earlier.
The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code relating to the special diet allowance under the Ontario Disability Support Program.
The Tribunal directed that no further steps be required in this application until a final decision is issued in the lead cases, suspending the requirements for further steps unless compelling reasons are provided.
Tribunal scheduled a preliminary hearing to address respondent's objections regarding settlement, timeliness, and jurisdiction.
The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race and sex.
The respondent raised preliminary issues, arguing that the application was barred by a prior memorandum of settlement, that certain allegations were untimely under s. 34 of the Code, and that certain allegations did not constitute discrimination under s. 5.
The Tribunal scheduled a preliminary hearing to address these issues and set a timeline for the exchange of materials.