Human rights complaints dismissed as abandoned after complainants failed to respond to Tribunal direction.
The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the complainants to confirm whether they intended to proceed with their complaints, warning that failure to respond within 21 days could result in dismissal for abandonment.
None of the complainants communicated with the Tribunal, and some mail was returned due to outdated addresses.
The Tribunal dismissed the complaints as abandoned.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to file required jurisdictional submissions.
The applicant failed to file submissions on whether the application should be dismissed as outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction, as directed by a previous Interim Decision.
Consequently, the application was dismissed as abandoned.
Request to amend human rights application denied due to untimeliness and unnecessary individual respondents.
The applicant requested to amend his human rights application to add new allegations and individual respondents.
The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the new allegations were not raised in a timely fashion and that there was no compelling reason to add individual respondents, as the organizational respondent could fulfill any order.
The request was granted only to correct the respondent's legal name.
Request for reconsideration dismissed; applicant failed to establish good faith for delay in filing application.
The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application for being filed outside the one-year limitation period.
The applicant argued that the adjudicator denied him procedural fairness by refusing to accept documents and made substantive errors regarding the date of the last alleged incident of discrimination and the finding of no good faith.
The Tribunal found that the adjudicator's determination of the last incident as the date of layoff was not inconsistent with established jurisprudence.
Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the applicant's medical evidence and late discovery of his Code rights did not establish good faith for the delay.
The request for reconsideration was dismissed.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to provide current contact information.
The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.
The Tribunal sent a Notice of Summary Hearing to the applicant, which was returned marked 'R.T.S.'.
The Registrar subsequently wrote to the applicant advising that failure to provide a current address by a specified date could result in the application being deemed abandoned.
The applicant did not respond.
The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned pursuant to Rule 5.4.
The Tribunal's correspondence to the applicant was returned to sender.
The Registrar warned the applicant that failure to provide a current address could result in the application being deemed abandoned.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to provide update on grievance proceeding.
The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, which was deferred pending a grievance proceeding.
The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide an update on the status of the grievance proceeding within 30 days, warning that failure to do so could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.
The applicant failed to respond.
Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to file submissions on delay.
The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, directing the applicant to file submissions on the issue of delay.
The applicant failed to file the required submissions.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to maintain current contact information.
The Tribunal's correspondence to the applicant was returned as undeliverable.
The Registrar warned the applicant that failure to provide a current address and respond by a specified date could result in the application being deemed abandoned.
The applicant failed to communicate with the Tribunal, and the application was dismissed as abandoned.
Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear human rights complaints alleging that statutory benefit schemes are discriminatory.
The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging that the denial of his WSIB claim for chronic mental stress under s. 13(5) of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act was discriminatory on the basis of disability.
The Tribunal convened a three-member panel to determine whether it had jurisdiction to hear a complaint alleging discrimination in the provision of statutory benefits.
The Tribunal concluded that benefits provided under a statute are 'services' within the meaning of the Human Rights Code.
While the Tribunal does not have the power to review the substantive correctness of WSIB decisions or act as an appellate body, it has jurisdiction to hear challenges alleging that the statutory scheme itself is discriminatory.
The Tribunal affirmed its jurisdiction and directed the parties to file detailed pleadings.
Respondent deemed to have accepted human rights allegations after failing to file a response.
The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination on the basis of race, colour, place of origin, and age.
The respondent failed to file a response despite receiving multiple notices and a prior interim decision directing it to do so.
Applying its established procedures for undefended applications, the Tribunal ordered that the respondent is deemed to have accepted all allegations in the application and waived all rights to notice or participation in the proceedings.
The applicant was directed to advise whether they wished to make oral submissions.
Application amended on consent to include race; parties directed to make submissions on delay.
The applicant sought to amend her human rights application to include the ground of race.
The Tribunal granted the amendment on consent.
The Tribunal also noted a potential issue regarding whether the allegations formed a 'series of incidents' and directed the parties to provide written submissions on whether some or all of the application should be dismissed for delay under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned due to applicant's failure to respond to Tribunal directions.
The Tribunal issued a Notice of Incomplete Application and Notice of Intent to Dismiss Application, directing the applicant to file various materials.
The applicant failed to file the required submissions by the deadlines, despite a reminder.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to provide respondent's contact information.
The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide contact information for the respondent and warned that failure to do so could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.
The applicant failed to respond to the direction.
The application was dismissed as abandoned.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to Tribunal correspondence.
The applicant's human rights application had been deferred pending Workplace Safety and Insurance Board proceedings.
The Tribunal sent multiple letters directing the applicant to provide an update on the WSIB proceedings, warning that failure to respond could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.
The applicant failed to respond to the correspondence.
Respondent granted final extension to file response to human rights application before Tribunal proceeds without them.
The respondent failed to file a response by the deadline set out in the Notice of Application.
The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent of the consequences of failing to participate, including the possibility of the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming the respondent to have accepted the allegations.
The respondent was granted a final extension to file a response and explain the delay.
Human rights complaints withdrawn with leave of the Tribunal.
The complainants sought to withdraw their human rights complaints against the respondents, which included various Ontario ministries and school boards.
The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario granted leave for the complaints to be withdrawn.
Union granted leave to intervene on consent in human rights application.
The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondents.
The union sought leave to intervene in the proceeding.
On consent of the parties, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario granted the union leave to intervene and directed that the application be scheduled for a hearing.
Tribunal defers human rights application pending union grievance; deferral power does not violate Charter section 7.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging systemic and individual discrimination by her employer.
The respondents requested that the application be deferred pending the conclusion of an ongoing grievance and arbitration process.
The applicant opposed deferral, arguing that the Tribunal's deferral power under section 45 of the Human Rights Code violates section 7 of the Charter because it transfers control of human rights claims from individuals to unions.
The Tribunal held that section 7 is not engaged, as deferral is a procedural step that does not restrict fundamental personal choices.
The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process to avoid duplication of proceedings.