Human rights application based on broken promise to marry dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in contracts and sexual solicitation after the respondent broke a promise to marry her.
The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that the Human Rights Code does not regulate spousal relationships or promises to marry, as a promise to marry is not a contract within the meaning of section 3, and marriage is not a benefit within the meaning of section 7(3).
The application was dismissed as falling outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.
Respondent given final deadline to file Response before Tribunal proceeds without further notice.
The Tribunal issued an interim decision addressing the respondent London ServiceOntario Office's failure to file a Response as directed in a previous order.
The Tribunal noted the potential consequences of failing to participate, including the possibility of proceeding without further notice and deeming the respondent to have accepted the allegations.
The respondent was given a final deadline to file its Response and explain the delay, failing which the Tribunal indicated it may proceed under Rule 5.5 of its Rules of Procedure.
OHRC and CCLA granted leave to intervene in human rights application regarding religious materials in schools.
The applicants, an atheist father and his daughter, brought human rights applications alleging that the respondent school board's policies regarding the distribution of religious publications in schools discriminated on the basis of creed.
The Ontario Human Rights Commission and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association sought leave to intervene.
The Tribunal granted the Commission leave to intervene and make an opening statement.
The CCLA was granted leave to intervene, but its participation was limited to submissions on how Charter values should inform the interpretation of the Code, as the Tribunal declined to allow the CCLA to introduce new constitutional issues not raised by the applicants.
Tribunal adds independent contractor as respondent and defers Ministry's liability argument to full hearing.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to services because of disability, specifically that the London ServiceOntario office lacked an automatic door opener.
The Ministry requested dismissal as a preliminary matter, arguing the office was run by an independent contractor.
The Tribunal denied the Ministry's request, finding the issue of liability should be determined at a full hearing.
The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to add the London ServiceOntario Office as a respondent, applying the test from Smyth v. Toronto Police Services Board.
Respondent's request for a two-week extension to respond to an interim remedy request partially granted.
The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in educational services and sought interim remedies, including the provision of an educational assistant and the lifting of a communication ban before the start of the school year.
The respondent requested a two-week extension of time to respond to the interim remedy request, citing counsel's trial schedule.
The Tribunal denied the full extension, noting the need for timeliness before the school year begins, but granted a one-week extension.
Tribunal denies employer's request to defer human rights application to a subsequently filed civil proceeding.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging she was dismissed from her employment because she took pregnancy and parental leave.
The respondent employer subsequently commenced an application in the Superior Court of Justice seeking declarations regarding the employment relationship and requested that the Tribunal defer its proceedings pending the court's decision.
The Tribunal denied the request to defer, noting that the Tribunal application was more advanced and that deferring to a later-filed court proceeding could encourage forum shopping and delay.
The Tribunal also deferred ruling on the applicant's request to amend her application to allege reprisal, noting the potential application of absolute privilege.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to Tribunal correspondence.
The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code but subsequently relocated to Alberta.
The Tribunal sent multiple communications requesting her availability for mediation and warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal.
The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's correspondence.
Consequently, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.
Human rights application deferred pending resolution of concurrent WSIB and OLRB proceedings.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal with respect to employment.
The respondents requested that the application be dismissed in part under s. 45.1 of the Code and deferred in part pending the resolution of concurrent proceedings before the WSIB and OLRB.
The Tribunal found that deferral was appropriate given the direct overlap of issues regarding the duty to accommodate.
The application was deferred pending the resolution of the other proceedings, with the s. 45.1 request to be addressed if the application is reactivated.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to Notice of Intent to Dismiss.
The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.
The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) on the basis that the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.
The applicant failed to respond to the NOID by the specified deadline.
Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.
The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction, directing the applicant to respond by a specified date.
The applicant failed to respond to the NOID.
Request to amend human rights application granted despite respondent's document retention policy.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment after she was not hired following an interview.
She subsequently requested to amend her application to add allegations that she was asked discriminatory questions about her marital and family status, and that she was discriminated against due to her association with an employee who had a disability.
The respondent objected to the amendments, arguing prejudice because it destroys interview notes after six months.
The Tribunal granted the request to amend, finding the request was made within the one-year time limit and that the respondent's document retention policy did not preclude the applicant from bringing a timely application.
Request for reconsideration of summary dismissal denied; Charter challenge to Tribunal rules rejected.
The applicant sought reconsideration of a Tribunal decision dismissing his human rights application on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success.
The applicant argued he did not receive notice of a hearing, that the respondent's counsel was not permitted to practice law in Ontario, that the Tribunal erred in applying the test for no reasonable prospect of success, and that Rule 19A of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure violated s. 7 of the Charter.
The Tribunal rejected all arguments, finding no basis for reconsideration under Rule 26.5, and dismissed the request.
Applications regarding firefighter mandatory retirement consolidated; Association granted intervenor status; further submissions ordered.
The applicants filed human rights applications alleging age discrimination regarding the implementation of mandatory retirement at age 60 in the City of Mississauga Fire Service.
In this interim decision, the Tribunal consolidated the applications on consent, granted the Association intervenor status in two files where it was not named as a respondent, and established a schedule for further written submissions on the respondents' request for summary hearings in light of a recent Tribunal decision.
Human rights application challenging mental stress benefit restrictions deferred pending similar WSIAT test case.
The applicant alleged that sections 13(4) and (5) of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997, which restrict benefits for mental stress, discriminate on the basis of disability.
The Attorney General for Ontario and the respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the resolution of a more advanced, similar challenge before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT).
The applicant did not oppose the deferral, though intervenors did.
The Tribunal exercised its discretion to defer the application to avoid duplicative litigation and the risk of inconsistent decisions, noting the WSIAT case was much more fully developed.
Firefighter's age discrimination application regarding mandatory retirement dismissed at summary hearing based on established jurisprudence.
The applicant, a suppression firefighter, alleged age discrimination after being required to retire at age 60 pursuant to a collective agreement.
The respondents requested a summary hearing, arguing the application had no reasonable prospect of success based on a recent Tribunal decision that found mandatory retirement at age 60 for firefighters to be a bona fide occupational requirement.
The Tribunal held that the applicant failed to provide evidence or a reasonable basis beyond speculation to suggest the result would be different from the established jurisprudence.
The applications were dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.
Personal respondents struck from human rights application on consent.
The applicant consented to removing the personal respondents from the human rights application.
The Tribunal issued an interim decision striking the personal respondents from the application.
Guilty plea to simple assault in criminal court does not bar human rights applications for sexual harassment.
The respondents sought to dismiss the human rights applications, arguing they were barred by the doctrine of abuse of process and s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code because the individual respondent had pled guilty to simple assault in criminal court.
The Tribunal held that the acceptance of a guilty plea to non-sexual assault does not imply a finding of factual innocence regarding the sexual assault allegations.
The Tribunal dismissed the respondents' request, allowing the applications to proceed.
Union blog posts containing sexist comments about a manager did not violate the Human Rights Code.
The applicant, a manager at a provincial jail, alleged that the respondent union president discriminated against and harassed her by posting sexist comments about her on a union blog.
The Tribunal found that the blog posts did not constitute harassment 'in the workplace' under s. 5(2) of the Human Rights Code because the blog was directed at union members and not accessed at work.
The Tribunal also found no discrimination with respect to employment under s. 5(1), balancing the applicant's Code rights against the union's Charter rights to freedom of expression and association regarding labour-management issues.
Human rights applications against unions for picketing at group homes dismissed for no reasonable prospect of success.
The applicants, individuals with intellectual disabilities residing in group homes, filed human rights complaints against the respondent unions.
They alleged that legal picketing by the unions at their group homes during lawful strikes constituted discrimination with respect to services and occupancy of accommodation under the Human Rights Code.
The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the applications had a reasonable prospect of success.
The Tribunal found that the Code does not govern the relationship between a union and those using services at a place the union's members are picketing, as the union members were acting as union members rather than service providers.
The applications were dismissed.
Recusal request dismissed; prior preliminary rulings in the same matter do not create reasonable apprehension of bias.
The individual respondent requested that the adjudicator recuse himself on the basis of a reasonable apprehension of bias, arguing that the adjudicator's prior ruling granting intervenor status to Justicia for Migrant Workers in the same matter tainted his impartiality.
The Tribunal dismissed the request, holding that making preliminary or case management rulings in advance of a final decision is a fundamental part of active adjudication and does not create a reasonable apprehension of bias.