Human rights application dismissed as out of time with no good faith explanation for delay.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing based on multiple grounds, relating to the withdrawal of a rental subsidy in 2012 or 2013.
The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine if the application was timely.
The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it was filed well beyond the one-year time limit under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code, and the applicant provided no good faith explanation for the delay.
Human rights applications dismissed as abuse of process due to prior Superior Court compliance proceeding.
The applicants filed human rights applications alleging racial profiling and discrimination by their condominium corporation, property management, and security.
The respondents requested early dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance of the applications had already been addressed in a prior Superior Court compliance proceeding brought against the applicants for vandalism and misconduct.
The Tribunal found that the applicants had raised their human rights allegations in the prior proceeding but chose not to participate further, resulting in a finding of liability against them.
The Tribunal concluded that the substance of the applications was essentially the same as the prior proceeding and dismissed the applications as an abuse of process.
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, directing the applicant to provide written submissions.
The applicant failed to respond to the NOID or communicate with the Tribunal.
Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.
Tribunal orders production of applicant's medical records for the one-year period prior to termination.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming the respondent failed to consider his disability-related needs when investigating alleged workplace misconduct.
The respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking production of the clinical notes and records of the applicant's family physician.
The applicant did not respond to the request.
The Tribunal found the medical records arguably relevant to the central issue of the applicant's medical condition at the material times.
The Tribunal granted the request but limited the production to the one-year period prior to the applicant's termination.
Respondents barred from leading evidence on new issues after failing to comply with document production orders.
The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of sex and sexual solicitation.
Two of the respondents failed to comply with the Tribunal's directions to produce arguably relevant documents and file hearing materials.
As a result of their complete failure to comply with the Tribunal's Rules and directions, the Tribunal ordered that these respondents may not lead evidence, call witnesses, or make submissions on issues not addressed in their Response, unless they can satisfy the Tribunal that doing so would cause no substantial prejudice or delay.
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 him to advise of his intentions.
Human rights application alleging discriminatory store ban dismissed for delay and no reasonable prospect of success.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging he was banned from a grocery store because he is Jewish.
The respondents contended he was asked to leave for one day after opening a food package with a knife in the store.
The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success and if it was filed in time.
The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no evidence to link the respondents' actions to the applicant's religion, making the claim entirely speculative.
Furthermore, the application was filed approximately 30 months after the incident, well beyond the one-year time limit under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, with no good faith explanation for the delay.
The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.
The applicant was directed to provide written submissions but failed to respond by the deadline.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing.
The applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing of his human rights application.
Prior to the hearing, the applicant's requests for an adjournment, change of venue, and production of documents were denied.
On the morning of the hearing, the applicant sent an email indicating he might not attend due to an unparticularized medical appointment and filed a second request for reconsideration.
The Tribunal found no reasonable explanation for the applicant's failure to attend, dismissed the application as abandoned, and denied the second request for reconsideration.
The applicant failed to respond to the NOID by the required deadline.
Reconsideration request denied due to respondents' deliberate attempt to mislead the Tribunal regarding notice.
The respondents requested reconsideration of an interim decision that deemed them to have accepted the allegations in the applications and waived their right to participate due to their failure to respond.
The respondents claimed they had not received notice of the applications or the interim decision.
The Tribunal found that the personal respondent was aware of the applications, had received the materials, and deliberately attempted to mislead the Tribunal by claiming otherwise.
The Tribunal concluded that the respondents' conduct constituted an egregious abuse of process and denied the request for reconsideration.
Reconsideration request dismissed; Case Assessment Direction is not a final decision.
The applicant requested reconsideration of a Case Assessment Direction (CAD) that denied several of his requests.
The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the CAD was an interlocutory decision, not a final decision, as it did not dispose of the entirety of the complaint or deprive the applicant of any prospect of a remedy.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to Tribunal directions.
The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.
The respondent sought clarification of the allegations and suggested it had no jurisdiction over the events or person involved.
The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide submissions clarifying the allegations against the respondent.
The applicant failed to respond to multiple directions from the Tribunal.
Consequently, the Tribunal found the application to be abandoned and dismissed it.
Request for reconsideration denied as applicant failed to establish new facts or evidence.
The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his application for lack of jurisdiction.
The applicant argued there were new facts or evidence under Rule 26.5(a) and sought to amend his application to allege a violation of section 2 of the Human Rights Code.
The Tribunal found that the applicant merely repeated arguments previously made and failed to establish any threshold criteria for reconsideration.
The request for reconsideration was denied.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to attend summary hearing.
The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of record of offences and disability.
A summary hearing was scheduled to determine whether the application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.
The applicant failed to attend the scheduled telephone conference hearing.
The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.
Tribunal finds joint employers liable for terminating pregnant worker earlier than planned due to impending leave.
The applicant, a bookkeeper placed at a client's office by an accounting firm, alleged she was terminated because of her pregnancy.
The respondents claimed she was dismissed for poor performance.
The Tribunal found that while there were performance issues, the client company decided to terminate her placement earlier than it otherwise would have because she was pregnant and leaving soon anyway.
The accounting firm, having no other work for her, terminated her employment and its principal reacted angrily upon learning of her pregnancy.
The Tribunal found joint liability for the discriminatory termination and individual liability for the principal's harassing conduct, awarding damages for lost wages and injury to dignity.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to attend scheduled summary hearing.
The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sexual solicitation or advances and sexual orientation.
A summary hearing was scheduled to determine if the application had no reasonable prospect of success.
The applicant failed to attend the teleconference hearing despite receiving notice.
Consequently, the application was dismissed as abandoned.
Human rights application alleging opposing counsel and adjudicators lacked competence dismissed as outside Tribunal's jurisdiction.
The applicant filed a human rights application against the Law Society of Upper Canada, alleging discrimination because opposing counsel and Tribunal adjudicators in his previous cases were allegedly incompetent in human rights law.
The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.
The applicant also requested to add the Tribunal as a respondent.
The Tribunal dismissed the request to add the Tribunal and dismissed the application in its entirety, finding it plain and obvious that the application fell outside its jurisdiction as it alleged no specific acts of discrimination and constituted an abuse of process as a collateral attack on previous decisions.
Adjournment of preliminary hearing denied; medical note insufficient and ample time provided to retain counsel.
The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled preliminary hearing, citing a medical note for a cough and a desire to retain counsel.
The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant had ample time to retain counsel since the hearing was directed almost a year prior.
Furthermore, the medical note was insufficient to justify an inability to participate in a short telephone hearing.