Motion to amend human rights application granted in part to increase monetary claim.
The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking leave to amend his human rights application.
He sought to add allegations of Occupational Health and Safety Act violations, text messages, and to increase his claim for monetary compensation to $60,000.
The Tribunal denied the request to add the new allegations due to insufficient information on how they constituted discrimination.
However, the Tribunal allowed the amendment to increase the monetary claim, finding no prejudice to the respondents as hearing dates had not yet been set.
Applicant's request to amend application denied; respondent's request to dismiss 2008 allegation for delay granted.
The applicant and respondent both filed Requests for Order During Proceeding in a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.
The applicant sought to amend the Application to include further job competitions, which the Tribunal denied because the proposed amendments were unclear and the request was made too close to the scheduled hearing date.
The respondent sought to dismiss an allegation relating to a 2008 job competition on the basis of delay.
The Tribunal granted the respondent's request, finding the allegation was filed well outside the one-year limitation period under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code and the applicant provided no explanation to justify waiving the delay.
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 Tribunal had previously deferred the application pending the conclusion of another legal proceeding.
After the other proceeding concluded, the applicant failed to file a Form 10 Request for Order as directed.
The Tribunal subsequently emailed the applicant requiring a response regarding her intentions with the application, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal for abandonment.
The applicant did not respond.
Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.
The respondents filed a Response and a Request to Defer.
The Tribunal directed the applicant to respond to the dismissal and deferral issues, warning that failure to do so could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.
After the applicant failed to respond to multiple directions, the Tribunal found the application abandoned and dismissed it.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after the applicant failed to respond to Tribunal directions.
The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code against the Waterloo Region Police Services, the Children's Aid Society, and several individuals.
The respondents filed a Request to Dismiss and a Request for Summary Hearing.
The Tribunal issued multiple directions requiring the applicant to respond to the respondents' requests and to confirm her contact information.
The applicant failed to respond to any of the Tribunal's directions.
Consequently, the Tribunal found that the applicant had abandoned the application and dismissed it.
Intervention request by advocacy group denied in sex discrimination case regarding female-only bartender advertisement.
The applicant alleged sex discrimination after applying for a bartender position advertised for females only.
In this interim decision, the Tribunal denied a request to intervene by the Canadian Association for Equality (CAFE), finding it would add cost and delay without assisting the Tribunal.
The Tribunal also declined to order the applicant to produce five years of financial records at this stage, though it noted the applicant bears the burden of proving pecuniary losses and mitigation.
The respondent filed a Request for Summary Hearing and a Request for Order During Proceeding.
The applicant failed to respond to the requests or to a subsequent Case Assessment Direction from the Tribunal, which warned that failure to comply could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.
The Tribunal found that the applicant's failure to participate indicated an abandonment of the proceeding and dismissed the application.
Human rights application dismissed under s. 34(11) due to parallel civil action seeking Code damages.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sexual harassment, sexual solicitation, and discrimination on the basis of sex and gender identity, leading to her dismissal.
The applicant had also commenced a civil action for wrongful dismissal, which was amended to include a claim for $200,000 in damages for breaches of the Human Rights Code based on the same allegations.
The Tribunal dismissed the application pursuant to section 34(11) of the Code, which bars an application if a civil proceeding seeking a remedy for the same alleged infringement has been commenced and not finally determined or withdrawn.
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 the application because it appeared to be outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.
The applicant failed to provide written submissions in response to the Notice within the required time.
Human rights application dismissed as out of time; generalized fear of reprisal did not excuse delay.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment more than two years after his dismissal.
The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to be out of time.
The applicant argued the delay was due to his spouse's fear that filing the application would negatively impact his new employment.
The Tribunal found this explanation did not establish a reasonable basis to fear reprisal and therefore did not constitute a good faith reason for the delay.
The application was dismissed as out of time.
The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.
The applicant was directed to provide written submissions but failed to do so.
The applicant failed to respond to the Notice by the required deadline.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to Tribunal inquiry.
The Tribunal subsequently wrote to the applicant requesting an update on the other proceeding and warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal for abandonment.
The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's inquiry.
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 Tribunal correspondence directing her to advise of her intentions.
Human rights applications dismissed at preliminary stage for failing to allege Code-protected discrimination.
The applicant filed three applications alleging discrimination on multiple grounds against various respondents, including the Hamilton Police Station, mental health organizations, and a bank.
The Tribunal issued Notices of Intent to Dismiss because the applications failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination under the Human Rights Code and included incoherent allegations involving masks, wigs, and Adolf Hitler.
The Tribunal dismissed the applications, finding it plain and obvious that they fell outside its jurisdiction, noting also that it lacked jurisdiction over the federally regulated bank.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to Tribunal correspondence.
After the respondent advised that the other proceeding had concluded, the Tribunal requested an update from the applicant and warned that failure to respond could result in dismissal for abandonment.
The applicant failed to respond.
Applicant's multiple procedural requests denied; ordered to cease filing until deferred application can be reactivated.
The applicant filed multiple procedural requests, including requests to reactivate a deferred application, consolidate it with an OLRB application, and reconsider a previous interim decision.
The Tribunal denied all requests, finding no change in circumstances to justify reactivation and noting that interim decisions cannot be reconsidered.
To prevent an abuse of process, the Tribunal ordered the applicant to cease filing further procedural requests or updates until the application can be properly reactivated.
Individual respondents removed from human rights application as corporate respondent assumed liability for their actions.
The corporate respondent requested an order to remove its employees as individual respondents from a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment.
The Tribunal applied the principles from Sigrist and Carson and Persaud, finding that the corporate respondent assumed liability for the actions of its employees, who were acting within the scope of their employment.
Finding no compelling juridical reason to keep the individuals as parties, the Tribunal granted the request and removed the individual respondents.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to attend mediation or respond to correspondence.
The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation session and subsequently failed to respond to multiple written directions from the Tribunal inquiring about her intentions with respect to the application.
The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.
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 by the required deadline.