Human rights applications dismissed as abandoned after applicants abruptly left the summary hearing teleconference.
The applicants filed human rights applications alleging discrimination with respect to services by the respondents.
A summary hearing was convened by teleconference to determine if the applications had no reasonable prospect of success.
During the hearing, one applicant repeatedly interrupted, made inappropriate comments about opposing counsel and the Tribunal, and ultimately left the call, refusing to allow the other applicant to represent him.
The second applicant then left the call without explanation.
After waiting 15 minutes, the adjudicator reconvened the hearing and dismissed the applications as abandoned.
Human rights applications dismissed; casino's 24-hour expulsion of patrons was based on aggressive behaviour, not discrimination.
The applicants, a family of Chinese descent, alleged discrimination on the basis of race, colour, ethnic origin, age, and disability after they were expelled from the respondent's casino for 24 hours following a dispute over a slot machine.
The Tribunal reviewed video surveillance of the incident and found that the applicant was the aggressor in a physical altercation with another patron.
The Tribunal concluded that the respondent had a reasonable, non-discriminatory explanation for the expulsion and that there was no evidence to support the inference that the decision was influenced by any prohibited grounds.
The applications were dismissed.
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 respond to the Notice by the required deadline.
Consequently, 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.
Unopposed request to amend human rights application to add ground of reprisal granted.
The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceeding to amend his human rights application to add the ground of reprisal based on facts already pleaded.
The respondent did not respond to the request.
The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the amendment would not alter the nature of the hearing in any material way.
Human rights application dismissed for abandonment after applicant failed to respond to Tribunal communications.
The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, which was deferred pending the conclusion of another proceeding.
The Tribunal subsequently directed the applicant to provide a status update on the other proceeding, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal for abandonment.
The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's direction and a subsequent inquiry from the respondent.
The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned and for being filed beyond the one-year limitation period.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment.
The respondent requested dismissal because the application was filed beyond the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.
The applicant failed to file a Reply addressing the delay issue despite being granted an extension.
The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned and, alternatively, for being filed out of time without a good faith explanation for the delay.
The applicant failed to respond to the Notice or communicate with the Tribunal.
Human rights application alleging racial discrimination by housing co-operative dismissed for no reasonable prospect of success.
The applicant, a resident of a housing co-operative, alleged discrimination on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, and receipt of public assistance, claiming the respondents used another member to harass her and issued unwarranted eviction notices.
The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.
The Tribunal found no evidence linking the respondents' actions to the applicant's race and determined that most of the allegations were out of time.
The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.
Tribunal awards lost wages and $12,500 in general damages for discriminatory failure to recall injured employee.
The applicant, a seasonal housekeeper at a hunting lodge, suffered a workplace injury and received WSIB benefits.
When she was cleared to return to work, the respondents failed to return her calls or schedule her for work, while simultaneously informing WSIB and Service Canada that she would not be returning.
The Tribunal found that the respondents discriminated against the applicant on the basis of disability or perceived disability, inferring that her WSIB claim was a factor in their decision not to return her to work.
The respondents, who did not participate in the hearing, were ordered to pay lost wages and $12,500 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.
Age discrimination application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because applicant was under 18.
The applicant, who was 17 years old at the time of the material events, filed an application alleging discrimination in the provision of goods and services because of age after being denied admission to the respondent's school.
The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.
The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, noting that section 10(1) of the Human Rights Code defines 'age' as 18 years or more, and there was no constitutional challenge to this definition.
Tribunal adds third-party contractor as respondent and refuses to remove individual respondent at preliminary stage.
The applicant alleged employment discrimination based on disability.
The individual respondent requested to be removed from the application, arguing he was not an employee of the respondent employer but rather of a third-party contractor.
The applicant subsequently requested to add the third-party contractor as a respondent.
The Tribunal denied the request to remove the individual respondent, finding it premature to determine agency or liability, but granted the request to add the third-party contractor as a respondent.
Reconsideration request denied as applicant failed to meet threshold criteria.
The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision denying him leave to file an application against the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.
The applicant argued the decision was unjust because his submissions from a Request for Order During Proceedings were allegedly not considered.
The Tribunal found that the submissions had been reviewed and considered in the original decision, and the applicant failed to meet the threshold criteria for reconsideration.
The request for reconsideration was denied.
Adjournment request denied as premature and speculative.
The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing, arguing that he would not receive necessary medical and payroll documents in time.
The respondent opposed the request, asserting that the medical issues were irrelevant as the dismissal was for economic reasons.
The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, finding it premature and speculative, and noted that document production delays could be addressed through other means such as allowing late production.
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 by the required deadline.
Respondent deemed to have accepted human rights allegations after failing to file a response.
The respondent failed to file a response despite being granted multiple extensions and being warned of the consequences.
The Tribunal ordered that the respondent is deemed to have accepted all allegations in the application and waived all rights to notice or participation in the proceedings.
A case management conference call was scheduled to determine next steps.
Human rights application deferred pending conclusion of concurrent grievance arbitration on same facts.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability, record of offences, and reprisal.
The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the conclusion of a concurrent grievance arbitration related to the same facts.
Despite the applicant's opposition, the Tribunal deferred the application, noting the substantial overlap in facts and issues and the principle of avoiding different conclusions in concurrent proceedings.
Human rights application dismissed summarily as applicant conceded unfair treatment was unrelated to protected grounds.
The applicant alleged discrimination with respect to employment because of family status after her licence was suspended following a random audit by the respondent College.
At a summary hearing, the applicant conceded that her claim of unfair treatment had no connection to her family status or any other protected ground under the Human Rights Code.
The Tribunal dismissed the application as having no reasonable prospect of success because there were no allegations of discrimination under the Code.
Landlord ordered to pay $1,000 for creating a poisoned environment through sexualized comments about tenants.
The applicant alleged that her landlord discriminated against her in housing accommodation on the basis of sex and receipt of public assistance, and engaged in reprisal.
The Tribunal found that the landlord made inappropriate, sexualized comments comparing the breast sizes of the applicant and her daughter to the building superintendent, who then repeated them to the applicant.
The Tribunal held that these comments created a poisoned environment for the applicant in her home.
The reprisal allegations were dismissed as the landlord's actions either predated his knowledge of the application or were not proven to be retaliatory.
The application was allowed in part, and the landlord was ordered to pay $1,000 in compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.