Human rights complaint dismissed as abandoned after complainant failed to file required submissions and evidence.
The complainant was directed by a Case Assessment Direction to provide submissions and evidence in support of her complaint by a specified date, with a warning that failure to do so could result in the complaint being dismissed as abandoned.
The complainant did not file the required materials.
As a result, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario dismissed the complaint as abandoned.
Human rights complaint dismissed as abandoned for failure to file submissions and evidence.
The complainant was directed to provide submissions and evidence in support of his human rights complaint by a specified date, failing which the complaint could be dismissed as abandoned.
The complainant failed to file the materials as directed.
The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario dismissed the complaint as abandoned.
Human rights complaint dismissed as abandoned for failure to file required submissions and evidence.
The complainant was directed by a Case Assessment Direction to provide submissions and evidence in support of her complaint by a specified date, failing which the complaint might be dismissed as abandoned.
Human rights complaint dismissed as abandoned after complainant failed to file required materials.
Human rights complaint dismissed as abandoned after complainant failed to file required submissions.
The complainant was directed by a Case Assessment Direction to provide submissions and evidence in support of his human rights complaint by a specified date, failing which the complaint might be dismissed as abandoned.
The complainant failed to file the required materials.
Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the complaint as abandoned.
Application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to file required submissions and evidence.
The applicant was directed to provide submissions and evidence in support of his application by December 23, 2011, and was warned that failure to do so could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.
The applicant did not file the materials as directed.
The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.
Human rights applications dismissed under s. 45.1 to prevent relitigation of issues decided in labour arbitration.
The applicant filed human rights applications alleging discriminatory discipline and discharge.
He had previously grieved his discipline and discharge under a collective agreement.
The arbitrator found just cause for discipline and no violation of the Human Rights Code.
The respondents requested dismissal of the human rights applications under s. 45.1 of the Code.
The Tribunal held that the arbitrator's finding of just cause implicitly incorporated a finding that the discipline did not violate the Code, and that the arbitrator had explicitly ruled on the Code issues.
Applying the Supreme Court's decision in Figliola, the Tribunal dismissed the applications to prevent relitigation, except for two allegations unrelated to the discipline.
Human rights application dismissed under s. 45.1 as the issues were previously decided in labour arbitration.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that his employer failed to accommodate his workplace injury and discriminatorily terminated his employment.
These same issues had previously been the subject of a grievance and a six-day labour arbitration, which dismissed the grievance and found no violation of the Code.
The Tribunal applied the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Figliola, holding that s. 45.1 of the Code requires the dismissal of an application where the same issues were decided in a different proceeding, without reviewing the procedural or substantive correctness of that prior proceeding.
The application was dismissed.
Initials substituted for applicant's name to protect minor's privacy; leave not required for new application.
The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration after withdrawing his Application, stating his intention was to file a new Application against a franchisee on behalf of himself and a minor with serious disabilities.
The Tribunal ordered that initials be substituted for the applicant's name in this and previous decisions to protect the minor's privacy.
The Tribunal also noted that leave is not required to file a new Application.
Tribunal directs submissions on whether service providers can claim discrimination against customers under section 1.
The applicant, a store owner, filed an application alleging that the respondent, a customer, discriminated against him on the basis of race and ethnic origin.
The Tribunal raised a preliminary issue of whether section 1 of the Human Rights Code grants jurisdiction to consider discrimination claims made by service providers against service recipients.
The Tribunal directed the parties to provide written submissions on this novel issue of statutory interpretation and invited potential intervenors.
Request for anonymization denied; application withdrawn as of right prior to response.
The applicant requested to have his initials used instead of his name in a previous interim decision and sought to withdraw his human rights application.
He argued that publishing his name could identify a minor who witnessed the alleged incident.
The Tribunal denied the request for anonymization, finding no basis to conclude that publishing the applicant's name would identify the minor, and noting the importance of an open process.
The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the application as no response had yet been filed.
Request to amend human rights application denied due to lack of proper particulars.
The applicant requested an order to amend his human rights application.
The respondent opposed the request, arguing the proposed amendments did not comply with Rule 6.2 of the Tribunal's Rules.
The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the proposed amended application lacked proper particulars, such as when, where, and by whom the alleged discrimination and harassment occurred, which would be unfair to the respondent and hinder active case management.
Reconsideration request dismissed; no conflict with established jurisprudence regarding the interpretation of s. 10(1) of the Code.
The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision dismissing her application for lack of jurisdiction.
The Tribunal had previously found that the Ontario Sales Tax Transition Benefit was a 'levy, fee, tax or other periodic payment imposed by law' under s. 10(1) of the Human Rights Code and therefore fell outside the social area of 'services'.
The applicant argued this interpretation conflicted with established jurisprudence.
The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no conflict with established case law and holding that the applicant's proposed interpretation would create an arbitrary distinction between tax credits and separate tax transition payments.
Reconsideration request dismissed; no conflict with established jurisprudence regarding the interpretation of the Code.
The applicant sought reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her application for lack of jurisdiction.
The original decision found that the Ontario Sales Tax Transition Benefit was a tax or periodic payment imposed by law under s. 10(1) of the Human Rights Code, and therefore fell outside the social area of services.
The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding no conflict with established jurisprudence and noting that reconsideration is not an appeal.
Consent order issued setting deadlines for document production and witness statements.
The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario issued a consent order directing the respondent to produce transcripts of preliminary hearings in a related criminal matter and other relevant documents.
The Tribunal also set deadlines for the delivery of witness statements and production requests, and directed the order of proceedings for the hearing on the merits, separating the wage issues from the sexual harassment issues.
Leave granted to withdraw human rights application.
The applicant sought leave to withdraw her human rights application, which had been the subject of several previous interim decisions.
The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.
The respondent noted it would not pursue its application for judicial review of a previous interim decision due to the withdrawal.
Request for closed hearing and publication ban denied due to lack of evidence supporting safety concerns.
The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in goods, services and facilities because of religion.
Along with the application, the applicant requested a closed-door hearing and a publication ban, arguing that publication could invite reprisal and religious bigotry.
The Tribunal denied the request, finding no evidence to support the applicant's bald assertions and holding that the circumstances did not justify overriding the strong public interest in open proceedings.
Unopposed requests to intervene in human rights application against police service granted.
Several organizations, including legal clinics and the Ontario Human Rights Commission, sought leave to intervene in a human rights application against the Toronto Police Service.
The requests were unopposed.
The Tribunal granted leave to intervene, finding that the proposed intervenors would contribute to the Tribunal's understanding of the issues.
The scope of the interventions and whether evidence would be called was deferred to a case management call.
Ontario Human Rights Commission granted leave to intervene in human rights application.
The Ontario Human Rights Commission sought leave to intervene in the application.
The request was unopposed.
The Tribunal granted leave to intervene, finding that the Commission would contribute to the Tribunal's understanding of the issues.
The scope of the intervention was deferred to a future case management call.
Human rights application dismissed mid-hearing as having no reasonable prospect of success.
The applicant, a school principal, alleged that his supervisor and the school board discriminated against him on the basis of disability and reprised against him for a previous human rights complaint.
The respondents maintained that the supervisor's actions were legitimate performance management in response to serious staff complaints.
During the merits hearing, after hearing the supervisor's evidence, the Tribunal considered whether the application should be dismissed.
The Tribunal held that it has the power to dismiss an application during a hearing if there is no reasonable prospect of success.
Finding the supervisor's evidence credible and concluding that her actions were untainted by the applicant's disability or prior complaint, the Tribunal dismissed the application.