Applicant directed to file third-party document with Tribunal and destroy copies on consent.
The respondent filed a Request for Order directing the applicant to deliver hard copies of a document containing third-party personal information to the Tribunal and destroy all digital copies.
The applicant consented to delivering the document to the Tribunal to be held in the file pending the conclusion of the proceeding.
The Tribunal directed the applicant to file the document with the Tribunal, provide a copy to the respondent to confirm filing, and destroy any digital or other copies.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to Tribunal directions.
The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.
The respondent sought early dismissal on the basis that another proceeding had appropriately dealt with the matter.
The applicant failed to respond to the respondent's request and a subsequent Case Assessment Direction from the Tribunal.
Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to attend mediation or respond to Tribunal.
After failing to attend a scheduled mediation session and failing to respond to multiple written directions from the Tribunal regarding her intentions to proceed, the applicant was deemed to have abandoned the application.
The application was dismissed.
Tribunal declines to dismiss ethnic origin discrimination claim at preliminary hearing.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on age and ethnic origin.
The Tribunal directed a preliminary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.
At the hearing, the applicant withdrew the age discrimination claim.
The Tribunal declined to dismiss the ethnic origin claim, finding that the applicant's allegations of differential treatment compared to francophone drivers provided a reasonable prospect of success.
The matter was directed to proceed to mediation or a hearing on the merits.
Reconsideration request dismissed; applicant failed to show unfairness in summary hearing procedure or vexatious litigant declaration.
The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed 13 of his applications and declared him a vexatious litigant.
He argued the Tribunal's procedure of scheduling the matters together was unfair and contrary to established practice, and that the Tribunal improperly adduced its own evidence regarding his litigation history.
The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no factual basis for the allegations of unfairness and noting the applicant failed to provide evidence that he personally experienced discrimination due to a disability-related impairment.
Human rights application alleging disability discrimination in services dismissed on consent.
The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to services because of disability.
The respondent sought early dismissal of the application on the basis that it was filed beyond the one-year time limit and pursuant to section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.
The applicant subsequently wrote to the Tribunal consenting to the dismissal of the application.
The Tribunal dismissed the application on consent.
The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.
The respondent requested early dismissal, arguing the applicant was dismissed for cause and had signed a Full and Final Release.
The applicant failed to respond to the respondent's request and a subsequent Tribunal direction to file a response.
Human rights application deferred pending conclusion of concurrent grievance arbitration raising identical issues.
The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to contracts because of sex.
The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the conclusion of a concurrent grievance arbitration raising identical issues.
The respondent supported deferral, while the applicant opposed it, arguing a Tribunal decision would have broader application.
The Tribunal deferred the application, noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority to enforce human rights statutes and that deferral avoids concurrent proceedings and inconsistent findings.
Adjournment of summary hearing granted due to sudden illness of representative's colleague.
The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled summary hearing because their representative had to take over another case due to a colleague's sudden illness.
The respondent opposed the request.
The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that the sudden illness constituted extraordinary circumstances under the Tribunal's Practice Direction.
Human rights application dismissed as untimely; applicant failed to establish good faith explanation for four-year delay.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability by her employer and sought to add her union as a respondent.
The application was filed nearly four years after the last alleged incident of discrimination.
The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine if the application was timely.
The applicant argued her delay was due to her disability and the effects of medication.
The Tribunal found the medical evidence insufficient to establish that she was practically prevented from filing in a timely way, noting her active participation in a grievance arbitration during the same period.
The Tribunal also declined to add the union as a respondent, finding no factual basis to infer discrimination in its representation.
The application was dismissed as untimely.
Human rights application alleging police conspiracy dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.
The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of race and ethnic origin, claiming the respondent police service refused to take his criminal complaints as part of a conspiracy to protect a hate group.
The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.
Finding that the applicant's allegations were bald assertions and entirely speculative, with no evidence linking the respondent's actions to a Code ground, the Tribunal dismissed the application.
Tribunal dismisses family status and union claims at summary hearing; medical restriction claim proceeds.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, family status, and reprisal against his employer, a supervisor, and his union.
The Tribunal dismissed the allegations regarding family status accommodation and reprisal, finding the applicant had withdrawn from the accommodation process and provided no evidence of reprisal.
The Tribunal also dismissed the application against the union, as there was no evidence its actions were discriminatory.
The allegation that the applicant was required to work outside his medical restrictions will proceed to a full hearing.
Human rights application challenging WSIB benefits denial dismissed for no reasonable prospect of success and delay.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of disability against her former employer (the Ministry of the Attorney General) and the WSIB.
The application stemmed from a 2005 WSIB decision denying ongoing benefits for a workplace injury, which the applicant claimed failed to properly account for her pre-existing disabilities.
Following a preliminary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it had no reasonable prospect of success as it essentially sought to appeal a WSIB benefits decision without any factual allegations of discriminatory treatment.
The Tribunal also found the application was filed out of time without a good faith explanation for the seven-year delay.
Human rights application dismissed on preliminary grounds for delay, prior settlement, and no reasonable prospect of success.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, gender identity, record of offences, and association, as well as reprisal.
The respondent requested that the application be dismissed on preliminary grounds.
The Tribunal dismissed the application in its entirety, finding that the 2011 allegations were out of time, the 2013 allegations had been resolved by a prior grievance settlement, and the remaining allegations regarding the applicant's termination for unsupported bereavement leaves had no reasonable prospect of success as there was no evidence linking the respondent's actions to a protected ground or reprisal.
Adjournment granted due to respondent's former counsel's sudden medical emergency.
The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because its former counsel was forced to retire due to a significant medical problem requiring life-threatening surgery.
Although the applicant did not consent to the renewed request, the Tribunal found that the emergent medical issue constituted an exceptional circumstance under its Practice Direction.
The request to adjourn the hearing was granted.
Human rights application deferred pending conclusion of concurrent grievance arbitrations and OLRB application.
The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination and reprisal with respect to employment.
The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the conclusion of concurrent grievance arbitrations and an Ontario Labour Relations Board application.
The respondent supported deferral, while the applicant opposed it.
The Tribunal found that deferral was appropriate to avoid different conclusions about the facts in concurrent proceedings, and deferred the application pending the completion of the other proceedings.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to Notice of Intent to Dismiss.
The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.
The applicant failed to respond to the Notice by the required deadline.
Adjournment request denied; witness absence for business does not constitute extraordinary circumstances.
The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because a key witness was called away on business and would be out of the country.
The applicant opposed the request but suggested scheduling a third hearing day for the witness.
The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding that the witness's absence did not constitute an extraordinary circumstance under the Practice Direction, and agreed that scheduling an additional day if necessary was a more fair and expeditious solution.
Adjournment request denied; change of counsel is not an exceptional circumstance.
The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because its former counsel retired and it retained new counsel.
The applicant consented to the adjournment.
The Tribunal denied the request, finding that a change of counsel does not constitute an exceptional circumstance under the Tribunal's Practice Direction to justify a late adjournment request.
The Tribunal amended the timelines for document delivery and filing.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after failure to respond to notice.
The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code against the Bank of Montreal.
The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the application because it appeared to be outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.
The applicant failed to respond to the Notice by the required deadline and did not otherwise communicate with the Tribunal.