Reconsideration request denied as proposed witness evidence was not new and could have been obtained earlier.
The respondents requested a reconsideration of a final decision that found the applicant had experienced sex discrimination in the workplace.
The respondents argued that the Tribunal should reconsider its decision because witnesses who were not called at the hearing were now available, and they disagreed with the findings of fact.
The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the respondents failed to meet the criteria under Rule 26.5(a).
The evidence of former employees was not new and could have been reasonably obtained prior to the original hearing, nor was it shown to be determinative of the case.
Tribunal dismisses 13 applications for lack of standing and declares applicant a vexatious litigant.
The applicant filed 13 applications alleging discrimination in the provision of goods and services, primarily on the basis of disability and creed.
The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether the applications should be dismissed and whether the applicant should be declared a vexatious litigant.
The Tribunal dismissed all 13 applications, finding that the applicant lacked standing to bring public interest complaints, failed to establish any personal disadvantage or adverse treatment, and attempted to relitigate previously decided issues.
The Tribunal declared the applicant a vexatious litigant, noting his history of filing numerous unmeritorious applications, and ordered that he must obtain leave before filing any future applications.
Hearing adjournment denied; counsel unavailability due to administrative error is not an extraordinary circumstance.
The respondent requested to reschedule the hearing dates because the assigned counsel was unavailable due to administrative errors.
The applicant opposed the request.
The Tribunal denied the request, finding that administrative errors and counsel unavailability do not constitute extraordinary circumstances under the Practice Direction, especially given the length of time until the hearing which allowed for reassignment of the file.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to Notice of Intent to Dismiss.
The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.
The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.
The applicant failed to respond to the NOID and a subsequent direction sent by email.
Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.
Respondent deemed to have accepted human rights allegations after failing to file a Response.
The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to housing.
The respondent failed to file a Response despite receiving a Notice of Application and a subsequent warning letter from the Tribunal.
Applying Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, the adjudicator deemed the respondent to have accepted all allegations in the application and waived all rights to further notice or participation.
A case management conference was scheduled to determine the next steps for the applicant.
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 respondents filed a response asserting the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction.
The applicant subsequently sent an email indicating a desire to dismiss the claim but failed to confirm delivery to the other parties.
After failing to respond to multiple Tribunal directions to confirm his intentions, the application was dismissed as abandoned.
Stay of proceedings pending judicial review of an interim procedural decision denied.
The applicant requested a stay of the human rights application pending an intended application for judicial review of a prior interim decision that denied his request to amend the application.
The Tribunal denied the stay, finding that the applicant failed to establish a serious issue to be tried, particularly given the privative clause protecting interim procedural decisions.
The Tribunal granted a separate request by the applicant to amend the remedies sought.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to Tribunal correspondence.
The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, which was deferred in 2012 pending the resolution of another legal proceeding.
In 2015, the Tribunal requested an update on the status of the other proceeding, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal for abandonment.
The applicant failed to respond to multiple communications.
Application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to Notice of Intent to Dismiss.
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.
Summary hearing to dismiss human rights application denied; allegations of disability discrimination and reprisal to proceed.
The Tribunal held a summary hearing on its own initiative to determine whether the applicant's human rights application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.
The applicant alleged discrimination based on disability, claiming the respondent's bus driver was verbally abusive and revoked her bus service after she complained and filed an application.
The Tribunal found that the allegations, if proved, might establish a violation of the Human Rights Code.
The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application and directed the respondent to file a response.
Application dismissed due to unexcused lengthy delay in seeking reactivation after civil proceedings concluded.
The applicant sought to reactivate a human rights application that had been deferred pending the outcome of a related civil action.
The civil action was discontinued after the applicant was declared a vexatious litigant.
The applicant filed the request to reactivate approximately six and a half months after the civil proceedings concluded, well beyond the 60-day limit in the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.
The Tribunal found no reasonable excuse for the delay and dismissed the application.
The respondent sought early dismissal of the human rights application on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release.
The Tribunal directed the applicant to respond to the dismissal request.
After the applicant failed to respond to multiple directions from the Tribunal, the application was dismissed as abandoned.
Second request for reconsideration dismissed as no exceptional circumstances were identified.
The applicant filed a second Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal's decisions dismissing her applications as abandoned.
The Tribunal dismissed the second request pursuant to Rule 26.7.1, finding that the applicant had not identified any exceptional circumstances that would warrant considering a subsequent request for reconsideration of the same decision.
Human rights application partially dismissed at summary hearing; applicant permitted to provide particulars on new allegation.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability against his employer and union, claiming his rate of pay was decreased when accommodated in a permanent position.
The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.
The Tribunal dismissed the application against the union entirely, finding no evidence that the creation of a new job classification was discriminatory.
The Tribunal also dismissed the allegations against the employer regarding the rate of pay and licence compensation.
However, the Tribunal permitted the applicant to provide further particulars regarding a newly raised allegation that he could perform his pre-injury duties with minor modifications.
Human rights application alleging failure to accommodate disability in furnished tenancy dismissed for lack of evidence.
The applicant, a tenant in a furnished accommodation, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to housing because of disability.
She claimed the respondent landlord failed to accommodate her back problems and an allergic reaction by refusing to provide an appropriate mattress.
The respondent raised a preliminary objection that the Landlord and Tenant Board had exclusive jurisdiction over the dispute.
The Tribunal dismissed the preliminary objection, finding it had jurisdiction over human rights issues in housing.
On the merits, the Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant did not make a clear request for accommodation related to a back disability, and the respondent met her procedural duty to accommodate regarding the alleged allergic reaction before the applicant broke her lease.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to comply with Tribunal directions.
The applicant failed to provide documents or witness statements as required by the Notice of Hearing.
The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to comply with the Rules and confirm her intention to appear at the hearing, warning that failure to do so could result in dismissal.
The applicant did not respond or comply.
Reconsideration granted and dismissal set aside where applicant asserted she did not receive Tribunal correspondence.
The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application as abandoned.
The applicant asserted that she did not receive the Tribunal's letter inquiring about the status of another ongoing proceeding.
Relying on recent Divisional Court jurisprudence, the Tribunal accepted the applicant's assertion at face value, granted the request for reconsideration, and set aside the dismissal.
Interim remedy to halt co-op by-law enforcement against applicant's parents denied.
The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to accommodation because of receipt of public assistance.
She sought an interim remedy to allow her to continue residing with her parents in the respondent co-op, contrary to its by-laws, and to prevent the respondent from penalizing her parents.
The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant's parents were not parties to the application, the reason for the request was unconnected to any Code ground, and there was no indication that the Tribunal would be unable to remedy any alleged breach if the applicant vacated the apartment.
Restaurant manager's sexual harassment of server results in $17,000 damages award against manager and corporate employer.
The applicant, a restaurant server, alleged that the general manager sexually harassed and assaulted her during a shift, including slapping her buttocks, unwanted sexual touching, and whipping her with a towel.
The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence credible and concluded that the manager's conduct amounted to discrimination and harassment on the basis of sex.
The corporate respondent was held vicariously liable as the manager was its directing mind.
The Tribunal awarded $17,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, but dismissed the claim for lost wages as the applicant quickly found alternative employment.
Personal respondents removed from human rights application where corporate respondent accepted vicarious liability.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment.
The corporate respondent, the LCBO, brought a Request for Order During Proceeding to remove several personal respondents from the application.
The Tribunal applied the factors for removing personal respondents, noting that the LCBO accepted responsibility for the conduct of its employees and that the personal respondents were acting within the scope of their employment.
The Tribunal granted the request in part, removing several senior managers and other individuals whose continued presence as parties was not necessary for the fair, just, and expeditious resolution of the application.