Tribunal removes Minister as personal respondent in OHIP discrimination claim and expedites mediation.
The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination in the denial of OHIP coverage and requested to expedite the proceeding.
The respondent requested to remove the Minister of Health and Long Term Care as a personal respondent.
The Tribunal granted the respondent's request, finding no compelling reason to name the Minister personally, as the claim related to OHIP eligibility criteria and raised no Code grounds against the Minister individually.
The Tribunal also agreed to schedule mediation on an expedited basis.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned and due to concurrent civil proceeding raising same issues.
The applicant filed a human rights application making allegations of differential treatment based on ethnic background.
A preliminary hearing was scheduled but cancelled after the respondents provided a Statement of Claim filed by the applicant in the Superior Court of Justice making the same allegations.
The Tribunal directed the applicant to make written submissions on whether the application should be dismissed under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code.
The applicant failed to respond.
The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned and, alternatively, under section 34(11) because the civil action raised the same issues in substance.
Tribunal orders respondents to pay $1,000 and develop health protocol after breaching human rights settlement.
The applicant filed an application alleging that the respondents breached the Minutes of Settlement resolving a human rights complaint.
The respondents failed to attend the hearing.
The Tribunal found that the respondents breached the settlement by failing to pay the agreed $1,000 and failing to develop an office protocol for assessing the risk of HIV and Hepatitis C transmission.
The Tribunal ordered the respondents to pay the $1,000 with interest and to develop and distribute the required protocol, but declined to award additional damages for the breach itself.
Personal respondent removed from human rights application; delay issue deferred to hearing adjudicator.
The respondent brought a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking to remove the individual manager as a personal respondent and to dismiss parts of the Application for delay.
The Tribunal granted the request to remove the personal respondent, finding that the manager was acting in the course of her employment implementing corporate policy and it was not necessary to involve her as a party for a fair resolution.
The Tribunal deferred the issue of delay to the hearing adjudicator, as it was unclear whether the earlier incidents were background or separate untimely allegations.
Human rights application dismissed as out of time; pursuing other legal proceedings is not good faith delay.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability regarding the use of the Glasgow Coma Scale to assess his injuries following a 1997 motor vehicle accident.
The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss as the application was filed 17 years after the incident.
The applicant argued the delay was due to his ongoing pursuit of Statutory Accident Benefits, which settled in 2014.
The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it was out of time and that the pursuit of other legal proceedings does not constitute a good faith explanation for delay under section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code.
Interim remedy request for $17,000 denied as applicant failed to meet Rule 23.2 criteria.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and subsequently requested an interim remedy of $17,000 to support an 'upper class' lifestyle and travel.
The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant failed to meet the significant onus under Rule 23.2 to establish that the application appeared to have merit, that the balance of harm favoured the remedy, or that it was just and appropriate.
The Tribunal noted that a summary hearing had already been directed because the application appeared to have no reasonable prospect of success, and the requested remedy did not align with the remedial purposes of the Code.
Adjournment of summary hearing denied as documentary medical evidence is not required at this stage.
The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled summary hearing in order to gather medical evidence to support her case.
The Tribunal denied the request, noting that parties are not expected to submit documents or call witnesses at a summary hearing.
The applicant only needs to be prepared to explain what the proposed evidence will be if the application proceeds to a merits hearing.
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.
After the applicant failed to respond to the NOID by the required deadlines, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.
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 pending the resolution of another legal proceeding.
After the other proceeding concluded, the Tribunal directed the applicant to file a Request for an Order During Proceedings to reactivate the application by a specified deadline.
The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's correspondence.
Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.
Human rights application alleging racial discrimination in employment and termination dismissed for insufficient evidence.
The applicant, a cook, alleged he experienced discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, and place of origin, claiming he was denied promotions, subjected to racist comments, and discriminatorily terminated following a verbal altercation with a manager.
The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding insufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.
The Tribunal preferred the respondent's evidence, concluding the applicant never applied for a promotion and was terminated for insubordination rather than discriminatory reasons.
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, which was sent by both regular mail and email, and did not otherwise communicate with the Tribunal.
Human rights application dismissed as out of time with no good faith explanation for delay.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on age, disability, and reprisal after police officers took her to a hospital against her will.
The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application was filed more than one year after the incident and failed to make specific allegations against certain respondents.
The applicant did not provide a reasonable explanation for the delay.
The Tribunal dismissed the application as out of time and for failing to plead facts against the remaining respondents.
The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, which was previously deferred pending the resolution of another legal proceeding.
The Tribunal subsequently wrote to the applicant requesting an update on the other proceeding and warning that failure to respond could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.
The applicant failed to respond to multiple communications from the Tribunal.
Tribunal grants anonymization and removes unnecessary Ministries as respondents in OHIP funding discrimination case.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination regarding OHIP funding for sex reassignment surgery.
In this interim decision, the Tribunal granted the applicant's request for anonymization due to the social stigma attached to the medical services at issue.
The Tribunal also granted the respondent's request to remove the Ministry of the Attorney General and the Premier as respondents, finding that the Crown was adequately represented by the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care.
The applicant's request to compel the attendance of the Ministers at mediation was dismissed.
Human rights application alleging racial discrimination in employment dismissed due to applicant's lack of credibility.
The applicant, a laundry room worker, alleged that she was subjected to verbal abuse and differential treatment by her supervisor because of her race and colour.
The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant's evidence to be inconsistent, lacking in detail, and not credible.
The Tribunal accepted the respondents' evidence that the alleged abuse did not occur and that the applicant was replaced after failing to report for scheduled shifts.
Application for contravention of settlement dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to directions.
The applicant filed an Application for Contravention of Settlement alleging the respondent failed to make a settlement payment.
The respondent filed a Response indicating the payment had been made.
The applicant subsequently failed to file documents, submissions, or respond to a Case Assessment Direction requiring her to confirm her intention to proceed.
The Tribunal found the applicant had abandoned the Application and dismissed it.
Tribunal orders applicant to provide particulars of discrimination allegations and extends respondents' time to file Response.
The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking an extension of time to file a Response, an order directing the applicant to particularize her Application, and the removal of the personal respondent.
The Tribunal granted the request for particulars, finding the Application devoid of necessary details regarding the alleged harassment and discrimination.
The Tribunal also granted the extension of time to file a Response until after the particulars are provided.
The request to remove the personal respondent was denied as premature, with leave to renew after the Application is particularized.
The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, which was previously deferred pending a grievance arbitration.
The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide an update on the status of the arbitration and warned that failure to respond could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.
Consequently, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.
Human rights application dismissed due to concurrent civil proceeding seeking remedy for same alleged infringement.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging disability discrimination in employment.
The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the applicant had commenced a concurrent civil proceeding seeking a remedy for the same alleged Code infringement.
The Tribunal found that section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code acts as a statutory bar preventing concurrent proceedings.
The application was dismissed.
Human rights application dismissed as out of time; fear of losing severance not good faith delay.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination in employment 19 months after his dismissal.
The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.
The applicant explained the delay by stating he was receiving severance payments and did not want to jeopardize them.
The Tribunal found this was not a reasonable excuse or a good faith explanation for the delay under section 34(2).
The application was dismissed as being outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.