Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to attend preliminary hearing.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability.
The respondent requested dismissal on the basis that its operations fall under federal jurisdiction.
A preliminary hearing was scheduled to hear submissions on the jurisdictional issue.
The applicant failed to attend the scheduled telephone conference hearing.
The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.
Adjournment granted due to exceptional circumstances involving late retention of counsel and applicant's disability.
The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates shortly before the hearing, citing late retention of counsel, inability to retrieve documents, and exceptional circumstances related to disability and housing.
The respondent consented on the condition that the new dates be peremptory.
The Tribunal found that the applicant's situation presented exceptional circumstances justifying the adjournment under its Practice Direction, and granted the request without making the new dates peremptory.
Human rights application dismissed as applicant withdrew underlying applications before accommodation request could be adjudicated.
The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in the provision of services by the Landlord and Tenant Board, claiming his request to have multiple applications heard on separate days due to a disability was denied.
The Tribunal found that while the respondent's initial handling of the request was deficient, the applicant withdrew his applications before the hearing took place, preventing the adjudicator from determining the accommodation request.
The Tribunal concluded the applicant experienced no adverse impact and dismissed the application.
Applicant ordered to produce bank statements and documents related to alleged moonlighting business.
The respondent in a human rights application alleging disability discrimination filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking production of the applicant's bank statements, income tax records, and documents related to an alleged manicure business.
The respondent argued the applicant was moonlighting while claiming to be off work sick.
The Tribunal ordered the applicant to produce her banking statements for 2014 and 2015, finding them arguably relevant to post-termination income and the respondent's defence.
The Tribunal also directed the applicant to produce pre-termination documents related to the manicure business or provide further submissions within 7 days.
Reconsideration request denied where applicant provided no reasons for failing to respond to earlier directions.
The applicant requested a reconsideration of the Tribunal's decisions dismissing her human rights applications as abandoned.
The applications were initially dismissed after the applicant failed to respond to Notices of Intent to Dismiss.
The Tribunal denied the reconsideration request, finding that the applicant provided no reasons to explain why the decisions should be reconsidered and offered no explanation for her failure to comply with the Tribunal's directions.
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 conclusion of another legal proceeding.
The Tribunal subsequently requested an update on the status of the other proceeding and warned that failure to respond could result in dismissal for abandonment.
After the applicant failed to respond to multiple communications, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.
Human rights applications dismissed for being out of time and lacking connection to Code grounds.
The applicant filed multiple human rights applications alleging reprisal by various respondents, including police services and court officials.
The Tribunal issued Notices of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) as the applications appeared out of time and lacked facts connecting the alleged conduct to a Code-protected ground or prior Code claim.
Finding no good faith explanation for the delay and no plain and obvious connection to the Code, the Tribunal dismissed the applications for lack of jurisdiction.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to comply with directions or communicate.
The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to goods and services because of creed, disability, and race.
After the applicant's representative advised they were no longer retained, the applicant failed to comply with Tribunal directions to file witness lists and documents, and ceased communicating with the Tribunal.
The Tribunal cancelled the hearing dates and directed the applicant to explain the non-compliance.
When the applicant failed to respond, the respondent requested dismissal.
The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.
Early dismissal request denied where applicant received no benefit from union's group grievance settlement.
The respondent requested early dismissal of an age discrimination application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the issues were resolved in a group grievance settlement between the respondent and the affected party union.
The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant received no benefit from the settlement and did not expressly adopt it.
The respondent was directed to file its response.
Reconsideration request denied as applicant failed to establish she did not receive notice of mediation.
The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision dismissing her human rights application as abandoned after she failed to attend a scheduled mediation.
The applicant argued she did not receive notice because she relied on email communication.
The Tribunal denied the request, finding that notice was sent by regular mail to the address provided by the applicant, was not returned as undeliverable, and the applicant had previously requested correspondence be sent to that mailing address.
Employees lack standing to request reconsideration of a Tribunal order reinstating their former manager.
Four employees of the respondent sought reconsideration of a Tribunal order reinstating the applicant to his former position as Manager of Emergency Medical Services.
The employees, who had testified about the applicant's workplace harassment, argued that his return would cause them significant mental health consequences.
The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the employees lacked standing as they were not parties to the proceeding.
The Tribunal also declined to reconsider the decision on its own initiative, noting that the employees' concerns were addressed at the original hearing and that the reinstatement order included conditions to repair workplace relationships.
Human rights application alleging police reprisal dismissed at preliminary stage for lack of factual foundation.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal by the Toronto Police Service and an individual officer following a motor vehicle accident.
The applicant claimed the police failed to properly investigate the accident in reprisal for a prior human rights application he had filed against unrelated respondents.
The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.
Finding no factual foundation connecting the alleged denial of police services to any protected ground or the prior application, the Tribunal dismissed the application as it was plain and obvious that it fell outside its jurisdiction.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to attend mediation or respond.
The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.
The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation session and did not respond to subsequent Tribunal correspondence directing her to advise of her intentions.
Application against Canada Post dismissed for abandonment and lack of provincial jurisdiction.
The applicant filed a human rights application against Canada Post Corporation regarding mail delivery.
The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the matter appeared to fall outside provincial jurisdiction.
The applicant failed to respond to the notice.
The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it was deemed abandoned and that mail delivery by Canada Post is exclusively within federal jurisdiction.
Human rights application against Superior Court judge dismissed for abandonment and lack of jurisdiction.
The applicant filed a human rights application against the Superior Court of Justice and a judge.
The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.
The applicant failed to provide written submissions in response and was deemed to have abandoned the application.
The Tribunal also found it lacked jurisdiction because a decision of the Superior Court of Justice is not a service under the Code, and judges are protected by judicial immunity.
The application was dismissed.
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 (NOID) because the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.
The applicant was granted an extension of time to file written submissions in response to the NOID but failed to do so.
Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to jurisdictional notice.
The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because it appeared the application was outside its jurisdiction.
The applicant failed to respond to the Notice.
Request to remove individual respondents granted as corporate respondent acknowledged vicarious liability.
The respondents requested the removal of two individual respondents from an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.
The organizational respondent acknowledged liability for any acts or omissions of the individual respondents in relation to the dispute.
Applying the factors from Sigrist and Carson and Persaud, the Tribunal found no compelling reason to keep the individuals as parties, as they were acting in the course of their employment and the corporate respondent could fully respond to the allegations and any remedial orders.
The request to remove the individual respondents was granted.
The applicant failed to provide written submissions in response to the Notice by the required deadline.
Human rights application deferred pending conclusion of concurrent grievance process regarding the same termination.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discriminatory dismissal based on disability.
In its response, the respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the conclusion of a concurrent grievance filed by the applicant alleging unjust termination.
The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the issues in the grievance and the application were sufficiently similar and that the orderly administration of justice favoured deferral to the grievance process.