Human rights application dismissed; Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to review WSIB benefit denial decisions.
The applicant alleged that the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board discriminated against him on the basis of age and disability when it terminated his benefits.
Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal found that the dispute was essentially an attack on the correctness of the WSIB's decision to deny benefits.
The Tribunal held that it lacks jurisdiction to review the substantive or procedural correctness of decisions made under other statutory schemes absent a Code violation.
The application was dismissed.
Request for reconsideration denied; applicant failed to adequately explain failure to receive Tribunal correspondence.
The applicant filed a request for reconsideration of a decision that dismissed his human rights application as abandoned.
The application had been deferred pending a WSIB proceeding, and the applicant failed to respond to a Tribunal inquiry about the status of that proceeding.
The applicant argued he did not receive the Tribunal's correspondence due to a computer virus and mail issues.
The Tribunal denied the request, finding the applicant failed to provide a sufficient explanation for why he did not receive the correspondence sent by both email and regular mail.
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 because the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.
The applicant failed to provide written submissions in response to the Notice by the required deadline.
Consequently, 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.
The Tribunal subsequently requested an update from the applicant regarding the status of the other proceeding, warning that failure to respond could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.
The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's correspondence.
Adjournment request denied; late retention of unavailable counsel is not an extraordinary circumstance.
The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because his newly retained representative was unavailable on one of the hearing dates.
The respondent consented to the request.
The Tribunal denied the adjournment, noting that under its Practice Direction, adjournments are only granted in extraordinary circumstances when requested outside the 14-day period.
The Tribunal held that retaining a representative who is unavailable on the scheduled dates does not constitute an extraordinary circumstance.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to attend mediation or respond.
The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation session and did not respond to subsequent correspondence from the Tribunal directing her to advise of her intentions.
The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.
Request to defer human rights application pending grievance dismissed due to lack of overlapping issues.
The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to defer her human rights application pending the conclusion of a grievance proceeding initiated by her union.
The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the reprisal allegations remaining in the application were distinct from the systemic discrimination issues raised in the grievance.
As there was no overlap in the issues in dispute, deferral was not appropriate.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond and parties executed settlement.
The applicant filed a human rights application which was deferred pending another legal proceeding.
The Tribunal requested an update on the other proceeding, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal for abandonment.
The applicant did not respond.
The respondent subsequently filed a request to dismiss the application, providing Minutes of Settlement in which the applicant agreed to withdraw the application.
The applicant did not respond to the respondent's request.
The Tribunal found the application abandoned and dismissed it.
Application for breach of settlement dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to directions.
The applicant filed an application alleging a breach of settlement under section 45.9(3) of the Human Rights Code.
The respondents asserted that the dispute had been resolved.
After the applicant failed to respond to multiple Tribunal directions requesting confirmation of whether she intended to proceed, the Tribunal found the application to be abandoned and dismissed it.
Reconsideration request denied as applicant failed to meet threshold criteria under Rule 26.
The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, which bars applications where the applicant has pursued human rights claims in a civil proceeding.
The applicant argued that the court proceeding did not address the issues because it did not go to trial and had nothing to do with human rights.
The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish any of the threshold criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26, noting that arguing a decision was incorrectly decided is not a basis for reconsideration.
The request for reconsideration was denied.
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 updates from the applicant regarding the status of the other proceeding, 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.
Consequently, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.
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, directing the applicant to provide written submissions.
The applicant failed to respond by the deadline.
Reconsideration request denied; applicant failed to establish compelling circumstances or explain failure to respond.
The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application for delay and abandonment.
The applicant argued he did not receive proper notice because his email was hacked and he was in the hospital.
The Tribunal denied the request, finding the applicant had received the respondent's response and the Tribunal's direction, had previously requested an extension to obtain counsel, and failed to provide evidence supporting his claims of email hacking or medical issues preventing his response.
The Tribunal had previously deferred the application pending the conclusion of another legal proceeding.
After the applicant failed to respond to multiple communications from the Tribunal requesting an update on the other proceeding, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.
Human rights application alleging disability discrimination, creed discrimination, and reprisal in employment scheduling dismissed.
The applicant, a restricted temporary employee at The Beer Store, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability and creed, as well as reprisal.
He claimed his hours were reduced to zero after he requested a brief accommodation for a minor soft tissue injury, and that he was harassed by his supervisor and co-workers.
He further alleged that a letter requiring him to clarify his availability for Sunday shifts was a reprisal for filing his human rights application.
The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the reduction in hours was due to the seasonal nature of the work and the applicant's low seniority status, not his accommodation request.
The Tribunal also found no evidence of harassment or that the respondent's request for clarification regarding Sunday availability was a reprisal.
After the other proceeding concluded, the applicant was directed to file a Request for Order but failed to do so.
Despite multiple follow-up communications and warnings from the Tribunal, the applicant did not respond.
The applicant filed an application under s. 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 the application being dismissed as abandoned.
The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's correspondence and follow-up email.
The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation session and subsequently failed to respond to a Tribunal direction requiring him to advise of his intentions regarding the application.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after parties failed to respond to Tribunal direction.
The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.
The Tribunal placed the matter in abeyance pending judicial review of a related application.
After the related application was resolved, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the parties to explain why the current application should proceed, failing which it would be dismissed as abandoned.
Neither party responded.
The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.