Request to remove individual respondents granted as corporate respondent conceded vicarious liability.
The corporate respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceeding to remove two individual respondents from an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of ethnic origin.
The applicant did not respond to the request.
Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal found that the corporate respondent would be vicariously liable for the actions of the individuals, there was no issue regarding its ability to remedy the alleged violation, and no compelling reason existed to keep the individuals as parties.
The request was granted and the individual respondents were removed.
Adjournment request denied as applicant's active participation in other legal matters contradicted his medical evidence.
The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled summary hearing for medical reasons, providing a letter from his family physician.
The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant's active participation in other legal proceedings, including filing complex legal submissions and participating in mediation, contradicted the medical evidence that he was incapable of engaging in activities requiring focused cognition.
The summary hearing was ordered to proceed as scheduled.
Request for production of applicant's prior work experience records granted in part.
The respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking the production of records related to the applicant's prior work experience.
The applicant opposed the Request.
The Tribunal found the applicant's prior experience arguably relevant to the reasons for his dismissal, as he asserted having 25 years of sales experience in his reply and witness statement.
The Tribunal granted the Request in part, ordering the applicant to provide a resume of his prior sales experience with contact information.
Request to defer human rights application pending regulatory college complaint denied.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to goods and services because of disability.
The applicant subsequently requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the conclusion of a complaint he filed with the College of Registered Psychotherapists of Ontario.
The respondents opposed the request.
The Tribunal denied the deferral request, finding that under section 36(3) of the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, the College proceeding could have no legal impact on the human rights case, and deferral would only result in significant delay.
Unopposed request for a six-month adjournment due to applicant's medical issues granted.
The applicant requested a six-month adjournment of the hearing scheduled for January 14, 2016, citing medical issues that prevented him from participating effectively.
The respondent did not oppose the request.
The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that the medical information provided described exceptional circumstances related to the conduct of the hearing.
The hearing was rescheduled to June 2016.
Adjournment request denied as counsel's unavailability was not raised within the 14-day window.
The respondents requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates because their counsel was unavailable.
The applicant opposed the request.
The Tribunal denied the adjournment, noting that under its Practice Direction, requests made more than 14 days after the Notice of Hearing require extraordinary circumstances.
Counsel's pre-existing unavailability, discovered after the 14-day window, did not constitute an extraordinary circumstance.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to Tribunal's status update request.
The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, which was deferred pending the resolution of another legal proceeding.
The Tribunal subsequently requested an update from the applicant regarding the status of the other proceeding, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal for abandonment.
The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's correspondence.
Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.
Request for Tribunal Ordered Inquiry denied due to lack of particulars regarding alleged witness threats.
The applicant in a human rights proceeding filed a Request for Tribunal Ordered Inquiry, alleging that potential witnesses had been threatened.
The Tribunal denied the request, noting that such inquiries are not routine and cannot substitute for the usual production process.
The applicant failed to provide particulars of the alleged threats or explain why the inquiry was necessary for a fair adjudication.
Furthermore, the matter was scheduled for a summary hearing where no evidence would be tendered.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to Tribunal directions.
The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.
The respondent filed a response and requests for early dismissal and summary hearing.
The applicant failed to respond to the respondent's pleadings and subsequent Tribunal directions.
The Tribunal found that the applicant had abandoned the application and dismissed it.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to file submissions on jurisdiction.
The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.
The respondent raised a jurisdictional objection, arguing the Code was expressly excluded by statute.
The Tribunal directed the applicant to file submissions on the jurisdictional issue.
After being granted an extension, the applicant failed to file submissions or communicate further with the Tribunal.
The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.
Interim order granted permitting applicant to visit hospitalized mother-in-law with his service animal.
The applicant sought an interim remedy to allow him to visit his mother-in-law in her hospital room while accompanied by his service animal.
The respondent hospital did not oppose the request.
The Tribunal found the test for interim relief was met, noting the urgency due to the family member's health status and the lack of identified harm.
The Tribunal granted the interim order, permitting access on the same basis as other family members, subject to specific exclusions for sterile and critical care environments.
Reconsideration denied; late offer to produce medical records does not cure abuse of process.
The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application as an abuse of process.
The original dismissal was based on the applicant's refusal to produce medical records and the prior dismissal of a related grievance arbitration for the same reason.
The applicant argued he received bad advice from his health care team and was now willing to produce the documents.
The Tribunal denied the reconsideration request, finding that the applicant's change of heart did not constitute new evidence and that the application remained an abuse of process due to forum shopping.
Request for reconsideration dismissed as the applicant failed to meet the threshold criteria.
The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application for having no reasonable prospect of success.
The applicant argued that the decision did not correlate with the admitted facts.
The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet the threshold criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5, noting that mere disagreement with the decision without reference to the criteria is insufficient.
The request for reconsideration was dismissed.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to Tribunal inquiry.
The Tribunal deferred the application on consent pending the resolution of another legal proceeding.
The Tribunal later wrote to the applicant requesting an update on the other proceeding and warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal for abandonment.
The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's inquiry.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to Tribunal correspondence.
The applicant filed an application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, which the Tribunal previously deferred pending the resolution of another legal proceeding.
The Tribunal later requested a status update on the other proceeding, warning that failure to respond might result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.
The applicant did not respond to the Tribunal's correspondence.
As a result, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to Tribunal's request.
The applicant filed an application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code.
The Tribunal deferred the application pending the resolution of another legal proceeding.
The Tribunal later requested an update from the applicant, warning that failure to respond might result in dismissal for abandonment.
The applicant did not respond.
The application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.
Request to remove seven individual respondents from human rights application granted.
The applicant alleged discrimination in employment based on disability, including failure to accommodate and reprisal.
The corporate respondent, Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO), brought a Request for an Order During Proceeding to remove seven individual respondents as parties.
The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the individuals were acting in the course of their employment and implementing corporate policy, and that the corporate respondent would be able to provide a remedy if a Code violation was found.
Request to reactivate deferred human rights application denied; concurrent grievance arbitration must conclude first.
The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of a concurrent grievance arbitration.
The applicant cited concerns with the conduct of the arbitration and delays in scheduling.
The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the delay was not sufficiently egregious to justify concurrent proceedings and that the settlement discussions described by the applicant were typical for an arbitration.
The application remains deferred.
Request to reactivate deferred human rights application denied as related police disciplinary proceedings remained ongoing.
The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of related proceedings under the Police Services Act.
The respondent opposed the request because the Police Services Act proceedings had not yet concluded.
The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding it inappropriate to reactivate the application before the conclusion of the proceedings to which it was deferred.
Human rights application dismissed as out of time; pursuing other litigation is not a good faith excuse.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in the provision of goods and services on the basis of disability, almost 23 months after the last alleged incident.
The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring submissions on whether the application was out of time.
The applicant argued the delay was due to his involvement in extensive other litigation and his disability.
The Tribunal found that pursuing other legal proceedings does not constitute a good faith reason for delay, and the applicant provided no medical evidence that his disability prevented him from filing on time.
The application was dismissed as out of time.