Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to award costs following repeal of Code provision.
Following the dismissal of a human rights complaint, the respondent union sought costs against the Ontario Human Rights Commission.
The Commission argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the costs provision in the Human Rights Code had been repealed.
The Tribunal held that it had no inherent jurisdiction to award costs and that the Statutory Powers Procedure Act did not provide jurisdiction because the Tribunal had not made the requisite rules.
Furthermore, the right to seek costs under the repealed Code provision had not accrued prior to its repeal, as the complaint was dismissed after the repeal took effect.
The request for costs was dismissed.
Request to exempt application from lead case procedure regarding special diet allowance denied.
The applicant challenged the special diet allowance under the Ontario Disability Support Program.
The Tribunal had previously established a lead case procedure for over one hundred similar cases.
The applicant requested that his case be determined individually due to his specific visual impairments.
The Tribunal found no compelling reason to treat the application differently from the others and ordered that it follow the established lead case procedure.
Tribunal issued directions for an upcoming hearing on preliminary and jurisdictional issues.
The Tribunal issued an interim decision setting out the preliminary and jurisdictional issues to be addressed at an upcoming hearing.
The issues include the Tribunal's jurisdiction in light of communications with the Ontario Human Rights Commission, the timeliness of the application, and whether the application should be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code due to previous grievance and Ontario Labour Relations Board proceedings.
The respondents were directed to file all documents relating to the previous proceedings.
Tribunal establishes procedure for respondents to raise federal jurisdiction objections without filing a full response.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination in employment.
The respondent wrote a letter to the Tribunal asserting that it is federally regulated and requesting that the Tribunal dismiss the application for lack of jurisdiction.
The Tribunal issued an interim decision establishing the procedure for respondents to raise federal jurisdiction objections.
The Tribunal held that respondents may file a Request for Order During Proceedings to raise the jurisdictional issue without having to file a full response to the application.
Tribunal clarified previous interim decision and granted respondent an extension of time to file further response.
The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario issued an interim decision clarifying a previous order and granting Windsor Regional Hospital an extension of time to file a further Response.
The Tribunal confirmed that the Hospital could file additional material facts or arguments in response to new allegations made by the applicant, and extended the deadline to December 31, 2008.
Tribunal scheduled a preliminary hearing to determine if application should be dismissed based on prior grievance settlement.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisals in employment.
The respondents requested early dismissal of the application, arguing that a grievance based on the same issues was settled at mediation and a release was signed.
The Tribunal directed a preliminary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed based on the release or under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.
Human rights application against bank dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as banking is federally regulated.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by a bank regarding an application for overdraft protection and treatment at a branch.
The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that banking is a federally regulated business.
The applicant sought to amend the application to name a different corporate entity, arguing it was a private organization.
The Tribunal denied leave to amend and dismissed the application, finding it plain and obvious that the matter relates to banking, which falls under federal jurisdiction pursuant to s. 91(15) of the Constitution Act, 1867.
Tribunal declined to dismiss application at preliminary stage as federal jurisdiction was not plain and obvious.
The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment.
The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that the respondent appeared to be a federally regulated business.
The Tribunal held that it will only dismiss an application at this stage if it is plain and obvious that the matter falls under federal jurisdiction.
As it was not plain and obvious on the face of the application that the respondent's charter business involved interprovincial transportation, the Tribunal decided to continue dealing with the application.
Tribunal severed allegations against hospital into a new file and proposed consolidating related applications.
The Tribunal issued an interim decision addressing case management issues in eight related human rights applications.
Noting that the allegations against Windsor Regional Hospital differed from those against the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, the Tribunal severed the hospital from one application and created a new file for those allegations.
The Tribunal also proposed hearing the newly severed application together with seven other related applications and invited the parties to make written submissions on the proposed consolidation.
Human rights application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to ongoing civil action seeking Code damages.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of age and disability.
Prior to filing the application, she commenced a wrongful dismissal action in the Superior Court of Justice seeking damages based on the same alleged Code violations.
The Tribunal held that section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code barred the application because the applicant had an ongoing civil proceeding seeking remedies for the same alleged infringement.
The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as the respondent is a federal work or undertaking.
The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in his employment with the respondent.
The respondent brought a request to dismiss the application on the basis that it is a federal work or undertaking and falls exclusively under federal jurisdiction.
The Tribunal agreed, finding that the respondent is a courier company whose core business involves interprovincial and international transportation, making it subject to federal jurisdiction.
Adjournment granted due to unexpected injury of moving party's counsel despite opposition.
The respondents requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because their counsel suffered an unexpected injury and was unable to walk or travel.
The complainant and the Commission opposed the adjournment, citing the stress of the delay and suggesting that in-house counsel could step in.
The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding it justified and appropriate given the unexpected circumstances and the respondents' right to be represented by the counsel who prepared their case.
Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over transition application where parties previously signed a binding settlement and release.
The applicant filed a transition application under s. 53(3) of the Human Rights Code after previously signing Minutes of Settlement and a release during a Commission mediation.
The settlement was not formally approved by the Commission.
The Tribunal held that it lacked jurisdiction over the s. 53(3) application because the complaint was not 'continued' within the meaning of the transition provisions.
The parties' unequivocal and binding expression of intent to resolve the complaint meant it was no longer active, regardless of the lack of formal Commission approval.
Tribunal orders oral hearing to determine jurisdiction over transitional human rights application.
In an interim decision, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario considered whether it had jurisdiction over an application under the transitional provisions of the Human Rights Code.
The respondents argued that the Commission's submissions regarding when a complaint is considered 'filed' contradicted its own published statements.
The Tribunal ordered an oral hearing to determine the jurisdictional issue and directed the Commission to provide a further statement of facts explaining the apparent contradiction.
Request to dismiss human rights application under s. 45.1 denied as premature pending WSIAT appeal.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability following his dismissal from employment.
The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that a Workplace Safety and Insurance Board Appeals Resolution Officer (ARO) decision had already dealt with the substance of the application.
Alternatively, the respondent requested deferral pending the applicant's appeal of the ARO decision to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT).
The Tribunal found the dismissal request premature as the ARO decision was not final, but directed the applicant to provide submissions on the deferral request in his Reply.
Interim request to stay external proceedings and anonymize applicant's name dismissed for lack of evidence.
The applicant, a hospital patient awaiting long-term care placement, requested interim orders to restrain the hospital from taking legal action against him or his attorneys, and to stay proceedings before the Consent and Capacity Board and the Public Guardian and Trustee.
The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding the Consent and Capacity Board matters were moot and there was no evidence that the Public Guardian and Trustee investigation or the hospital's actions would affect the Tribunal's process.
The Tribunal also denied the request to anonymize the applicant's name, as no strong reasons were provided to override the open hearing principle.
Tribunal orders expert evidence to be submitted in writing with cross-examination before a court reporter.
The Tribunal issued an interim case management decision regarding the procedure for hearing expert and medical evidence in the lead cases concerning the special diet allowance.
The Tribunal ordered that expert evidence-in-chief be provided in writing, with cross-examination to take place before a court reporter rather than during the oral hearing, to ensure a fair, just, and expeditious resolution.
Tribunal directed applicant to address whether WSIA's explicit exemption from the Code precludes jurisdiction.
The applicant filed an application alleging that the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act discriminates against him on the basis of age by terminating his benefits at age 65.
The respondents raised a jurisdictional issue, arguing that s. 2.1(1) of the WSIA explicitly exempts the Act from the Human Rights Code.
The Tribunal amended the style of cause and directed the applicant to address the jurisdictional issue in his Reply before determining whether to dismiss the application.
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 related complaints were already before the Tribunal 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.
The applicant was directed to advise the Tribunal on how she wishes to proceed within 60 days of the final decision in the lead cases.
Tribunal seeks parties' submissions on Commission's proposal to resolve jurisdictional issues regarding unapproved settlement.
The applicant filed two applications with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario: one alleging a breach of a settlement reached at the Commission, and another electing to abandon the complaint and apply to the Tribunal under section 53(3) of the Code.
The Commission advised that it had failed to formally approve the settlement under section 43 of the old Code and proposed that the applicant withdraw her section 53(3) application so the Commission could approve the settlement.
The Tribunal suspended the previous deadlines for submissions and directed the parties to provide their views on the Commission's proposed resolution.