Interim decision removing personal respondents and denying request for production of financial statements.
The applicant alleged discrimination based on family status and sex after a fitness club refused to allow him to leave his child at a women's-only club's child minding facility while he worked out at a nearby co-ed club.
In this interim decision, the Tribunal removed the personal respondents on consent and denied the applicant's request for production of the respondent's audited financial statements, finding them not arguably relevant at this stage.
The Tribunal also directed that the upcoming hearing commence with submissions on whether the application has a reasonable prospect of success.
Request for reconsideration dismissed; no reasonable apprehension of bias established by adjudicator's brief prior meeting with counsel.
The applicant requested a reconsideration of previous Tribunal decisions dismissing his human rights application, alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias and significant injustice.
The applicant claimed the adjudicator was biased due to a brief prior meeting with respondent counsel and other tangential connections.
The Tribunal applied the established legal test for bias and found no reasonable apprehension of bias.
The Tribunal also held that the applicant's disagreement with the factual and legal conclusions of the previous decisions did not meet the limited grounds for reconsideration.
The request for reconsideration was dismissed.
Human rights application deferred pending completion of concurrent grievance and arbitration proceedings.
The respondent requested that the human rights application be deferred pending the completion of grievance and arbitration proceedings under the collective agreement.
The applicant's bargaining agent sought to intervene and supported the deferral request.
The Tribunal granted the union leave to intervene and deferred the application, noting that the grievance raised the same issues and labour arbitrators have jurisdiction to apply the Human Rights Code.
Human rights application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as allegations were not based on prohibited grounds.
The applicant filed an application alleging reprisal and discrimination after being denied membership in the respondent club.
The applicant claimed the rejection was due to personal animosity from a club mentor.
The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting the allegations were not based on any prohibited grounds under the Human Rights Code and did not involve claiming or enforcing Code rights.
The Tribunal concluded it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the application.
Tribunal allows amendment of human rights application for recent incidents but denies older allegations due to delay.
The applicant sought to amend his human rights application to include a list of discriminatory incidents dating back to 2005.
The respondent objected on the basis of delay and requested a summary hearing.
The Tribunal denied the request to add incidents occurring more than a year prior to the application, finding they were either not part of a series or would cause prejudice due to delay.
The Tribunal allowed the addition of three recent allegations and denied the respondent's request for a summary hearing.
Respondent ordered to produce accessibility training records under O. Reg. 429/07.
The applicant requested an order for the production of documents indicating whether the respondent trained its employees in accordance with O. Reg. 429/07 under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005.
The respondent did not respond to the request.
The Tribunal found that the training records required under section 6(6) of the Regulation were arguably relevant to the issues in the application, including remedy, and ordered the respondent to produce the records or advise that it has none.
Request to lift abeyance denied pending related decision on Tribunal's jurisdiction over the respondent.
The applicant requested that his human rights application move forward after being held in abeyance for a year and a half pending a related decision on whether the respondent's employment relations fall under provincial or federal jurisdiction.
The respondent maintained it falls under federal jurisdiction and requested the abeyance continue.
The Tribunal found it would not be in the interests of justice to proceed while its jurisdiction remains undetermined, and ordered the application to remain in abeyance.
Human rights complaint withdrawn with leave of the Tribunal.
The complainant requested to withdraw the human rights complaint.
The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario granted leave and the complaint was withdrawn.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to make submissions on jurisdiction.
The applicant filed an application with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.
The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to make written submissions regarding jurisdiction.
The applicant was warned that failure to comply could result in the application being deemed abandoned.
The applicant failed to provide the required submissions.
Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.
Human rights complaints dismissed as abandoned after complainant failed to respond to Tribunal direction.
The complainant's next friend was directed to advise the Tribunal if he wished to proceed with the complaints, failing which they would be dismissed as abandoned.
The Tribunal received no correspondence.
The complaints were dismissed as abandoned.
The complainant sought to withdraw the human rights complaint.
The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario granted leave to withdraw the complaint.
Request for interim remedy dismissed; submissions requested on whether applicant is a vexatious litigant.
The applicant filed a request for an interim remedy seeking interim payments from the respondents across multiple applications stemming from his dismissal as a teacher.
The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applications that had already been dismissed were moot, and the remaining applications did not appear to have merit.
The Tribunal also requested submissions on whether the applicant should be declared a vexatious litigant and barred from filing further applications without leave.
Human rights application challenging municipal shark fin ban dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that a City of Toronto by-law prohibiting the possession, consumption, and sale of shark fin products discriminated against him on the basis of race, ancestry, and ethnic origin.
The respondent municipality brought a request to dismiss the application for lack of jurisdiction.
The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the mere passage of a municipal by-law under general legislative authority is an exercise of political powers and does not constitute a 'service' under the Human Rights Code.
As the applicant did not allege that the by-law affected him in any protected social area, the matter fell outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.
Litigation guardian appointed; no disqualifying conflict of interest found despite guardian's actions being at issue.
The respondent opposed the appointment of the applicant's mother as her litigation guardian, arguing she had a conflict of interest because her own actions were at issue in the dispute over the termination of the applicant's support services.
The Tribunal applied the test for litigation guardians, finding that a clear and demonstrated conflict of interest is required to disqualify a proposed guardian.
The Tribunal held that the mother's interest in vindicating her own actions did not conflict with her interest in pursuing the applicant's rights, and appointed her as litigation guardian.
Mother permitted to continue as litigation guardian after child protection proceedings concluded.
The respondents challenged the applicant's mother's ability to continue acting as his litigation guardian in human rights proceedings, arguing that her involvement in child protection proceedings created a conflict of interest.
The Tribunal found that since the child protection proceedings had concluded and the mother had regained custody, there was no clear and demonstrated conflict of interest.
The mother was permitted to continue as litigation guardian.
Applicant's sister appointed as litigation guardian; anti-union views did not constitute a conflict of interest.
The applicant, a person with intellectual disabilities living in a group home, alleged that picketing by the respondent union during a legal strike violated his Code rights.
As the applicant lacked legal capacity, his sister sought to be appointed as his litigation guardian.
The respondent union opposed the appointment, arguing that the sister had a conflict of interest due to her historical acrimony towards unions and picketing.
The Tribunal found that a family member can be a litigation guardian unless there is a clear, demonstrated conflict of interest with the incapable person.
The Tribunal concluded that the sister's strong views against the union did not establish a conflict of interest with her brother, and appointed her as litigation guardian.
Tribunal granted adjournment and separated sexual harassment and wage claims due to respondents' counsel's conflict.
At a hearing before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, the respondents' representative developed a conflict of interest and could no longer act in relation to the sexual harassment claims.
Given these exceptional circumstances and an agreement in principle on the wage claims, the Tribunal granted an adjournment.
The Tribunal ordered the separation of the sexual harassment claims from the wage claims into new files and set deadlines for claimants to confirm their intention to proceed with the wage claims.
Tribunal rule permitting denial of requests to expedite without written reasons does not violate procedural fairness.
The applicant filed a Request to Expedite his human rights application, which was denied without written reasons pursuant to Rule 21.2.1 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.
The applicant brought a motion arguing that the rule should be quashed because the failure to provide reasons violated the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and common law procedural fairness.
The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the decision to expedite is procedural, not final, and therefore does not attract a statutory or common law duty to provide written reasons.
Human rights application dismissed as untimely because it was filed outside the one-year limitation period.
The respondent mental health facility requested the dismissal of a human rights application on the basis that it was filed outside the one-year limitation period.
The applicant alleged discrimination based on ancestry and disability regarding access to music therapy and native services while detained at the facility.
The Tribunal found that the application was filed more than a year after the last incident of alleged discrimination and that the applicant provided no reasons to establish good faith for the delay.
The application was dismissed as untimely.
The respondent requested that the human rights application be deferred pending the completion of grievance and arbitration proceedings under a collective agreement.
The applicant opposed the request, arguing that not all issues were identical.
The Tribunal granted the deferral, applying its general approach to avoid duplication of proceedings since labour arbitrators have jurisdiction to apply the Human Rights Code.
The application was deferred pending the conclusion of the grievance process.