Tribunal waives requirement to complete standard discrimination forms for reprisal applications but orders further particulars.
The applicants filed multiple applications alleging reprisals by the respondents.
The applicants refused to complete section 6 of the application form or the supplemental forms, arguing that reprisal does not require a specific ground of discrimination.
The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.
In this interim decision, the Tribunal held that while the forms generally require completion, in these unique circumstances, the applicants would not be required to complete section 6 or the supplemental forms, provided they answer specific questions about the alleged complaints and investigations.
The Tribunal also ordered the applicants to provide details of the remedies sought, removed unidentified respondents, and added the hospital as a respondent.
Scheduled mediation cancelled due to respondents' refusal to attend and outstanding jurisdictional issues.
The Tribunal issued an interim decision cancelling a scheduled mediation after the respondents advised they would not attend.
The Tribunal noted that outstanding jurisdictional issues must be determined before any further steps are taken.
Ex parte request for order during proceedings denied for lack of justification and fairness concerns.
The applicant brought an ex parte Request for Order During Proceedings seeking extensive relief affecting the respondent hospital, the Public Guardian and Trustee, and the Consent and Capacity Board.
The Tribunal denied the request to proceed ex parte, finding that the applicant provided no reasons to justify proceeding without notice and concluding it would be unfair to determine the issues before other parties had a chance to make submissions.
Complaint against union dismissed due to prior OLRB settlement; complaint against employer proceeds.
The respondents requested the dismissal of human rights complaints against the employer and the union under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the complaints was appropriately dealt with in a settled duty of fair representation application before the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB).
The Tribunal found that the OLRB settlement appropriately dealt with the substance of the complaint against the union, as the same facts and allegations of discrimination were raised and resolved.
However, the Tribunal declined to dismiss the complaint against the employer, finding that the OLRB proceeding could not adjudicate the employer's alleged failure to accommodate, and the settlement did not express an intention to resolve the underlying human rights issues with the employer.
The Tribunal also struck out new allegations raised by the Commission that were not part of the original complaints.
Late-filed response accepted due to delivery error.
The respondent filed its response after the deadline set by the Tribunal's Rules.
In a previous interim decision, the Tribunal addressed the failure to respond.
The respondent subsequently provided submissions explaining that a delivery error occurred and that the response was sent prior to the deadline.
The Tribunal accepted the explanation and ordered that the response be accepted and processed.
Tribunal ordered submissions on its jurisdiction to hear applications regarding an unapproved Commission settlement.
The applicant filed two applications with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario regarding a human rights complaint previously settled at the Ontario Human Rights Commission.
The first application alleged a breach of the settlement, and the second sought to abandon the Commission complaint and proceed before the Tribunal.
The Tribunal noted potential jurisdictional issues, as the settlement was not formally approved by the Commission and the obligations were allegedly unfulfilled.
The Tribunal ordered the Commission to provide a statement of facts regarding the settlement's status and directed the parties to provide written submissions on the Tribunal's jurisdiction to hear the applications under the transitional provisions of the Human Rights Code.
Applicant directed to provide submissions on jurisdiction where narrative alleged wrongful dismissal without a protected ground.
The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code following her dismissal from employment, checking 'record of offences' as the ground of discrimination.
However, she answered 'no' to questions asking if she was discriminated against because of a federal or provincial offence, and her narrative only alleged her position was falsely eliminated due to restructuring.
Noting that it lacks general power to evaluate employment dismissals absent a Code violation, the Tribunal directed the applicant to provide written submissions explaining how her application falls within its jurisdiction.
Tribunal issues final deadline for respondent to file response before proceeding without notice.
The applicant filed a human rights application.
The respondent failed to file a response within the required 35-day period.
The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent that failure to participate could lead to orders against it without further notice, and provided a final deadline to file a response with an explanation for the delay.
Tribunal grants respondents' request for an extension of time to file submissions.
In an interim decision, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario granted a request by the respondents for an extension of time to deliver their submissions regarding whether the application was barred by section 53(8) of the Human Rights Code.
The Tribunal extended the respondents' deadline to October 15, 2008, and the applicant's reply deadline to October 22, 2008.
The Tribunal also reminded the parties of the requirement to copy all written communications to all other parties.
Late response accepted; applicant directed to address deferral request in reply.
The respondent filed a late response to a human rights application, explaining that the delay was due to an error.
The Tribunal accepted the late response.
The respondent also requested that the application be deferred because the underlying facts were the subject of two union grievances referred to arbitration.
The Tribunal directed the applicant to address the deferral request in her reply.
Application withdrawn with leave of the Tribunal.
The applicant requested leave to withdraw his application filed under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.
The respondent made no submissions.
The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.
The applicant requested leave to withdraw his application filed under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, pursuant to Rule 10 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.
The respondents made no submissions on the request.
Tribunal addresses complainant's concerns regarding hearing delays, confirming schedule to conclude by June 2009.
A complainant wrote to the Tribunal expressing concern about delays resulting from a previous interim decision, noting the severe impact of being without the Special Dietary Allowance.
The Tribunal responded by clarifying that while two hearing dates were cancelled, 11 new dates were added, and affirmed its commitment to concluding the hearing by June 2009 while balancing fairness and the administration of justice.
Tribunal issues interim decision giving respondent final deadline to file response after missing initial deadline.
The applicant filed an application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code.
The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent that failure to participate could lead to orders against it without further notice, pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.
The respondent was given a final deadline to file a response and explain the delay.
Tribunal scheduled mediation and deferred decision on request for expedited processing.
The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code and requested expedited processing under Rule 21.
Both parties agreed to mediation.
The Tribunal ordered mediation to be scheduled within three weeks and deferred the decision on the request for expedited processing until after the mediation.
Tribunal orders respondents and Commission to provide submissions and information regarding jurisdictional bars.
In an interim decision, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario ordered the respondents to provide submissions on whether the application was barred by s. 34(11) and/or s. 53(8) of the Human Rights Code.
The Tribunal also directed the Ontario Human Rights Commission to file a statement of facts regarding the processing, closure, and withdrawal of the applicant's complaint to assist in resolving the jurisdictional issues.
Tribunal suspends further steps 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.
The Tribunal noted that over one hundred related complaints had been referred and a lead case approach was being used.
The Tribunal ordered that no further steps in the application would be required until the final decision in the lead cases, consistent with its procedure in similar applications.
Human rights application regarding special diet allowance deferred pending final decision in related lead cases.
The applicant filed a human rights application regarding the special diet allowance under the Ontario Disability Support Program and requested a deferral pending her appeal before the Social Benefits Tribunal.
The Tribunal directed that no further steps be required in the application until the final decision in related lead cases, consistent with the procedure applied to over one hundred similar complaints.
The Registrar was directed to serve the application on the respondent.
Tribunal deferred complainant's request for Commission-provided counsel, ordering written submissions if pursued.
During a pre-hearing conference call, the complainant requested an order requiring the Commission to clarify its intentions regarding its participation in the hearing and to provide her with legal counsel.
The Tribunal declined to hear oral submissions on the issue during the call, finding it procedurally unfair without full preparation.
The Tribunal ordered the Commission to advise by November 21, 2008, whether its position on participation had changed, and directed the complainant to file a formal request for an order with written submissions if she wished to pursue the matter further.
Tribunal declines to dismiss application at preliminary stage as federal jurisdiction is not plain and obvious.
The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment against United Parcel Service.
The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that the respondent appeared to be a federally regulated business.
The applicant provided written submissions opposing the dismissal.
The Tribunal held that it was not plain and obvious that the matter fell under federal jurisdiction, and directed that the application continue and be served on the respondent and the applicant's union.