Human rights application dismissed as airport security employment falls within federal jurisdiction.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment.
The applicant worked as a supervisor of security guards at Pearson International Airport.
The Tribunal determined that the employment of airport security guards falls within federal jurisdiction, as it is essential to aeronautics.
Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, noting that any claim must be made to the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
Request for reconsideration of decision dismissing human rights application over union blog posts denied.
The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision dismissing her human rights application against the union and its president.
The original decision found that blog posts by the union president, which criticized the applicant using sexist stereotypes, did not constitute workplace harassment under the Human Rights Code because they were protected by freedom of expression and association in the context of union-management relations.
The applicant and the intervening Ontario Human Rights Commission argued the Tribunal made fundamental errors in balancing these competing rights and denied procedural fairness.
The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding no conflict with established jurisprudence, no denial of procedural fairness, and no error in its balancing of the competing rights.
Tribunal removes respondent from human rights complaint after no parties objected to Case Assessment Direction.
In a Case Assessment Direction, the Tribunal ordered that 'Centre de coupe et pliage' would be removed as a respondent if no party objected within 14 days.
As no objections were received, the Tribunal ordered the party removed from the proceeding.
Human rights applications dismissed as abandoned due to applicant's failure to produce required documents.
The applicant failed to deliver arguably relevant documents to the respondents and file them with the Tribunal as required by Rule 16.1 and directed in the Notice of Hearing.
Despite multiple Case Assessment Directions warning that the applications could be dismissed as abandoned if the documents were not produced, the applicant failed to communicate with the Tribunal.
Consequently, the applications were dismissed as abandoned and the scheduled hearing was cancelled.
Human rights application regarding home care services dismissed in part; claim regarding discriminatory termination of services proceeds.
The applicant, who has complex health problems, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability regarding the provision and eventual termination of home care services by the SECCAC and the respondent Ministries.
The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had no reasonable prospect of success.
The Tribunal dismissed the claims against the Ministries, finding no Code requirement for government benefit programs to be perfectly tailored to individual needs.
The Tribunal also dismissed most claims against the SECCAC regarding the quality of care and failure to accommodate, as disagreements over medical care do not constitute discrimination.
However, the Tribunal allowed the allegation that the termination of services was discriminatory to proceed, as it required evidence to determine if the complexity of the applicant's disability was a factor in the service providers' refusal to work.
Summary hearing request to dismiss employment discrimination application denied as evidence is required.
The applicant, a supply teacher, alleged employment discrimination based on race, colour, ethnic origin, and religion after not being considered for a second supply contract.
The respondent school board requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.
The Tribunal dismissed the respondent's request, finding that the application raised issues requiring evidence, such as the applicant's prior replacement of the teacher, allegations about the composition of supply versus permanent staff, the lack of an interview, and the alleged lack of feedback and support.
Human rights application alleging disability discrimination and reprisal in trailer rental dismissed for lack of evidence.
The applicant, a resident of Florida, alleged that the respondent discriminated against him based on disability and committed a reprisal by refusing to rent him a trailer in Windsor, Ontario.
The applicant claimed the refusal was due to his aggressive behaviour, which he attributed to his mental health disabilities, and in retaliation for a previous human rights complaint filed in Arizona.
The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no medical evidence linking the applicant's behaviour to his disabilities, and no evidence that the respondent intended to retaliate against him for his prior complaint.
Tribunal granted respondent 14 days to file a late Response or face consequences.
The applicant filed an Application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.
Expertech was named as an additional respondent but failed to file a Response by the required deadline.
The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning Expertech of the consequences of failing to respond under Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, and granted Expertech 14 days to file a Response along with an explanation for the delay.
Human rights application regarding autism funding termination dismissed as untimely with no good faith delay.
The applicant, a child with autism, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the respondents regarding the termination of his funding for an Intensive Behavioural Intervention program.
The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine if the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.
The Tribunal found that the only timely allegations had no reasonable prospect of success and could not form part of a series of incidents to extend the limitation period.
Furthermore, the applicant failed to establish that the delay in filing was incurred in good faith.
The application was dismissed as untimely.
Respondent given 14 days to file a Response after failing to meet the initial deadline.
The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.
The respondent failed to file a Response by the deadline set in the Notice of Application.
The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent that failure to participate could lead to orders against it without further notice, and granted the respondent 14 days to file a Response along with an explanation for the delay.
Request for reconsideration of summary dismissal of discrimination application denied.
The applicant sought reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his discrimination application for having no reasonable prospect of success.
The applicant alleged discrimination based on age, race, and gender after his employment contract as a college teacher was not renewed.
The Tribunal found no basis for reconsideration, noting that the applicant failed to provide specifics of how the respondent misled the Tribunal or how he would prove discrimination.
The request for reconsideration was dismissed.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to Tribunal directions.
The Tribunal issued an Interim Decision directing the respondent to identify preliminary issues and the applicant to respond.
The applicant failed to respond to the respondent's submissions or to a subsequent Case Assessment Direction warning that the application could be dismissed as abandoned.
The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.
Interim remedy for school bus service denied due to insufficient medical evidence of disability-related need.
The applicants, two students with pes planus (flat feet), requested an interim remedy requiring the respondent school board to provide them with bus service to and from school.
They also requested to expedite the proceedings.
The Tribunal denied the request for an interim remedy, finding insufficient medical evidence to support the claim that they were unable to walk to school without pain or that the pain could not be alleviated through treatment.
The Tribunal also denied the request to expedite the proceedings and directed the applicants to provide more detailed medical information before requiring the respondent to file a full response.
Age discrimination application dismissed at summary hearing for lacking a reasonable prospect of success.
The applicant, a 53-year-old who previously worked for the respondent through a third-party contractor, alleged age discrimination after failing to obtain an interview for a custodial maintenance position.
The respondent received over 200 applications and hired 32 individuals, including some younger and at least one older than the applicant.
The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.
Finding no evidence beyond speculation to link the failure to hire to the applicant's age, and noting that the traditional prima facie case test is not rigidly applied at the summary hearing stage, the Tribunal dismissed the application.
Request for reconsideration dismissed as respondent failed to meet the strict criteria under Rule 26.5.
The respondent requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision allowing the human rights application.
The respondent argued against factual findings and indicated an intention to call further evidence, including video evidence not presented at the original hearing.
The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the respondent did not meet the strict criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5, as reconsideration is not an appeal or an opportunity to re-argue a case or call new evidence that could have been obtained earlier.
Demande d'ajournement rejetée; l'absence du pays et le coût d'un appel ne sont pas exceptionnels.
Le requérant a demandé l'ajournement d'une audience sommaire prévue par téléconférence, au motif qu'il se trouvait à l'extérieur du Canada et n'avait pas accès à un téléphone pour faire un appel interurbain.
Le Tribunal a rejeté la demande, concluant que le fait de devoir dépenser de l'argent pour participer à une audience depuis l'étranger ne constitue pas une circonstance exceptionnelle justifiant un ajournement.
Human rights complaint withdrawn with leave of the Tribunal.
The complainant requested leave to withdraw her human rights complaint against the Ministry of Community and Social Services.
The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario granted leave and the complaint was withdrawn.
The complainant sought to withdraw her human rights complaint against the Ministry of Community and Social Services.
Several human rights applications withdrawn with leave; six others dismissed as abandoned.
The applicants sought to withdraw several human rights applications, which the Tribunal granted with leave.
Additionally, six applications were dismissed as abandoned because the applicants could not be contacted and failed to confirm their desire to proceed by the extended deadline.
The decision noted that matters other than wage claims remained open in separate files.
Request for reconsideration dismissed where applicant failed to comply with pre-hearing document filing directions.
The applicant sought reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application as abandoned.
The application was originally dismissed after the applicant failed to file required pre-hearing documentation and failed to respond to a Case Assessment Direction.
The applicant argued that he had already provided the necessary materials and that his application was well-founded.
The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the applicant failed to comply with clear directions and that no exceptional circumstances existed to justify reconsidering the decision.