Human rights application regarding restricted access to apprehended grandchild dismissed for no reasonable prospect of success.
The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of ancestry, family status, and association after her grandchild was apprehended by a children's aid society, resulting in restricted access.
The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application.
The allegations regarding the apprehension were previously dismissed in a related application by the child's mother, making this claim an abuse of process with no reasonable prospect of success.
The Tribunal further found it had no jurisdiction to interfere with the ongoing court proceedings regarding custody and access, and the applicant provided no evidence to support her claims of differential treatment.
Human rights application dismissed at preliminary stage for failing to allege Code-related discrimination.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal, claiming that jail guards and police officers were in a conflict of interest and should not participate in a baseball league.
The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application failed to identify specific acts of discrimination connected to Code grounds.
Finding no connection between the allegations and the Code, the Tribunal dismissed the application at a preliminary stage for lack of jurisdiction.
Human rights application dismissed at preliminary stage for failing to connect allegations to Code grounds.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on age, disability, and reprisal, claiming that the respondents continued to sponsor a baseball league from which he was expelled.
The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the application failed to identify specific acts of discrimination connected to the Code.
Finding no connection between the respondents' alleged actions and the cited Code grounds, the Tribunal dismissed the application as being outside its jurisdiction.
Interim remedy to leave work early for Sabbath preparation denied for failing to meet onus.
The applicant, a Seventh Day Adventist, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on creed and sought an interim remedy to leave work two hours early on Fridays to prepare for the Sabbath.
The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant failed to meet the significant onus of establishing that the interim remedy was necessary to further the remedial objects of the Human Rights Code or that the balance of harm favoured granting the request.
Human rights application reactivated without objection following conclusion of WSIA proceeding.
The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceeding to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the completion of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Act proceeding.
The respondent did not object to the request.
The Tribunal granted the request and reactivated the application, directing the Registrar to schedule a two-day hearing.
Applicant's procedural requests for venue change, specific adjudicator, OHRC monitoring, and late amendments denied.
The applicant in a human rights proceeding filed two Requests for Order During Proceeding.
The first request sought to have the mediator assigned as the hearing adjudicator, to change the hearing venue from Ottawa to Toronto, and to have the Ontario Human Rights Commission monitor the case.
The second request sought to amend the Application to add new grounds.
The Tribunal denied all requests, noting that mediators do not conduct hearings without consent, the alleged discrimination occurred in Ottawa, the Tribunal cannot direct the OHRC to monitor cases, and the amendment request was out of time and inappropriately delayed.
Human rights application deferred pending conclusion of concurrent grievance arbitration on same facts.
The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code regarding a workplace dispute.
The respondents requested deferral of the application pending the conclusion of grievances filed by or on behalf of the applicant under a collective agreement.
Finding that the grievances involved the same facts and issues, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance arbitration process, noting that grievance arbitrators have the power and responsibility to enforce human rights obligations.
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 the Tribunal's jurisdiction due to delay.
The applicant failed to respond to the Notice within the required time.
Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.
Request for production of documents denied as irrelevant to the preliminary issue of settlement.
The applicant filed requests for the production of documents ahead of a scheduled preliminary hearing.
The preliminary hearing was set to determine whether a settlement existed between the applicant and the respondent City, and whether the City should be removed as a party.
The Tribunal denied the requests for production, finding that the requested documents were not relevant to the preliminary issues to be addressed.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after the applicant failed to file a reply.
In its response, the respondent requested that the application be dismissed because the applicant had signed a full and final release.
The Tribunal directed the applicant to file a reply addressing the request to dismiss and warned that failure to do so could result in the application being deemed abandoned.
The applicant failed to file a reply or communicate with the Tribunal.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to Tribunal directions.
The Tribunal contacted the applicant multiple times to confirm her intention to proceed with the application or withdraw it.
The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's written directions or file a formal request to withdraw.
Request to reactivate deferred human rights application denied due to ongoing concurrent grievance arbitration.
The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking to reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of a related grievance arbitration.
The applicant argued that the arbitration had been delayed.
The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the orderly administration of justice favoured deferral due to the substantial overlap in facts and issues between the application and the ongoing grievance proceeding.
Human rights application dismissed at summary hearing for failing to link complaints to Code grounds.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal against a housing co-operative and its property management.
The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.
The applicant's complaints centered on the co-op's decision to evict a resource centre and alleged unfair management, but she could not point to any evidence linking these actions to a protected ground under the Human Rights Code.
The Tribunal also found no evidence that the alleged reprisal was in response to the applicant asserting her Code rights.
The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.
Deferred human rights application reactivated following conclusion of WSIAT proceeding.
The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the completion of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) proceeding.
The WSIAT proceeding concluded with the applicant deemed to have abandoned his appeal.
The respondent did not respond to the request.
The Tribunal found it appropriate to reactivate the application and directed the Registrar to schedule a two-day hearing.
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 within the required time.
Vexatious litigant's requests for leave to file 12 new human rights applications denied.
The applicant, previously declared a vexatious litigant, sought leave to file 12 new applications with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.
The Tribunal had previously ordered that any future applications must include submissions explaining why they are legitimate assertions of Code rights, not intended to vex respondents, and not an abuse of process.
The applicant submitted identical requests for all 12 proposed applications without referencing their specific facts.
The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet the burden imposed by the prior order, as the proposed applications lacked factual connection to the Code and resembled his previous abusive filings.
The requests for leave were denied.
Human rights application dismissed because applicant commenced a civil action seeking identical relief.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the respondents.
The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the applicant had commenced a civil class action lawsuit seeking damages for the identical violations of the Human Rights Code.
Despite the applicant's assertion that it was withdrawing from the civil action, no evidence of withdrawal was provided.
The Tribunal dismissed the application under section 34(11) of the Code, which prohibits an application if a civil proceeding seeking an order under section 46.1 has been commenced and not finally determined or withdrawn.
Human rights application allowed to proceed past preliminary stage; potential deferral pending grievance.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination based on disability.
The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to be filed beyond the one-year time limit under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.
The applicant submitted that his disability prevented timely filing.
The Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the application was outside its jurisdiction and directed that it be processed.
As a related grievance proceeding was ongoing, the Tribunal directed the parties to object to deferral within 7 days, failing which the application would be deferred under section 45.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to attend preliminary hearing or substantiate emergency.
The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to goods and services because of disability.
A preliminary hearing was scheduled by telephone conference call.
The applicant's litigation guardian contacted the Tribunal and the respondent shortly before the hearing to advise they could not attend due to a family emergency.
The Tribunal treated the communication as a request for an adjournment and directed the applicant to provide information substantiating the emergency.
The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's directions.
Consequently, the Tribunal found the application abandoned and dismissed it.
Reconsideration granted to set aside dismissal caused by administrative error; summary hearing scheduled.
The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision that dismissed his human rights application as abandoned.
The Tribunal found that the applicant had in fact responded to the Tribunal's directions, but his response was not before the adjudicator due to an administrative error.
The Tribunal granted the reconsideration, set aside the dismissal, and granted the respondent's request to schedule a summary hearing to address issues of delay and reasonable prospect of success.
The Tribunal also permitted the applicant to file a request to amend his application to add new grounds and a new respondent.