Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to Tribunal directions.
The applicant filed a human rights application but failed to respond to a Notice of Intent to Defer and a subsequent Case Assessment Direction regarding whether the application should be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.
Due to the applicant's failure to respond, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.
Human rights application reactivated following the withdrawal of a related grievance.
The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceeding to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending a grievance arbitration.
The grievance was subsequently withdrawn.
The Tribunal found it appropriate to reactivate the application and directed the respondent to file a Response within 35 days.
Human rights applications alleging reprisal and discrimination dismissed at summary hearing for no reasonable prospect of success.
The applicant filed two human rights applications alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment, culminating in his termination.
The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the applications and sought an order declaring the applicant a vexatious litigant.
The Tribunal found no reasonable prospect that the applicant could establish his discipline and termination were intended as a reprisal or were otherwise discriminatory, noting the discipline predated his initial human rights application and was supported by his own insubordinate communications.
The applications were dismissed, but the request to declare the applicant a vexatious litigant was denied.
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.
The applicant failed to respond to the NOID by the specified deadline.
Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.
Summary hearing to dismiss age discrimination application denied; applicant permitted to pursue similar fact evidence.
The Tribunal held a summary hearing on its own initiative to determine whether the applicant's age discrimination application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.
The applicant alleged she was overworked, unfairly disciplined, and transferred with reduced hours due to her age, pointing to similar treatment of other older employees by a new assistant manager.
The Tribunal found that while the applicant's case relied on potentially difficult similar fact evidence, it could not conclude there was no reasonable prospect of success.
The application was allowed to proceed to mediation.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to request to dismiss.
The applicant filed a human rights application.
In response, the respondent filed a request to dismiss the application on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release.
The Tribunal directed the applicant to file submissions responding to the request, warning that failure to do so could result in the application being deemed abandoned.
The applicant failed to file submissions or communicate with the Tribunal.
Historical discrimination allegations dismissed for delay as gaps exceeding one year broke the series of incidents.
The respondents brought a Request for Order during Proceeding seeking to dismiss aspects of the applicant's human rights application for delay.
The applicant, a school board employee, alleged a series of discriminatory incidents and reprisals dating back to 2005.
The Tribunal found that allegations relating to events prior to 2008, including a 2008 supervisory officer selection process, were out of time as they were separated by a gap of more than 12 months from subsequent allegations, breaking any putative series of incidents.
The Tribunal also found no good faith explanation for the delay.
The untimely allegations were dismissed, though some historical evidence may be permitted to provide context for the timely reprisal claims.
Human rights application alleging discriminatory police investigation dismissed for lack of evidence linking conduct to Code grounds.
The applicant alleged that the respondent police service discriminated against him with respect to services because of his ethnic origin, specifically by failing to adequately investigate and prosecute three alleged assaults against him.
The Tribunal found that the police did investigate the incidents and exercised appropriate discretion in not laying charges.
The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the police officers over the applicant's inconsistent testimony and concluded there was no evidence that the officers' decisions were influenced by the applicant's ethnic origin or any other Code ground.
The application was dismissed.
Human rights application deferred pending resolution of concurrent union grievance raising the same issues.
The respondents requested the deferral of a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability, pending the resolution of a concurrent grievance filed by the applicant's union.
The Tribunal found that the grievance raised essentially the same issues as the application.
In accordance with its normal practice regarding concurrent proceedings under a collective agreement, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process.
Human rights application alleging discriminatory fault determination by insurer dismissed for no reasonable prospect of success.
The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of age, race, ethnic origin, and colour after his insurer determined he was 100% at fault for an automobile accident under the Fault Determination Rules, despite a police officer stating he did not cause the accident.
The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.
The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant provided no evidence linking the insurer's fault determination to any prohibited ground under the Human Rights Code.
The respondent requested a summary hearing and dismissal for delay.
After the applicant failed to respond to the respondent's requests and a subsequent Case Assessment Direction warning of potential dismissal, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.
The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code against the Landlord and Tenant Board.
The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the application as it appeared to be outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.
The applicant failed to respond to the Notice by the directed deadline.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.
The applicant filed an application under s. 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 respond by a specified date.
The applicant failed to respond to the NOID.
As a result, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.
Human rights application deferred pending conclusion of concurrent grievance arbitration on the same issues.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability.
The respondent requested that the application be deferred under section 45 of the Human Rights Code pending the conclusion of a concurrent grievance arbitration dealing with the same facts and issues.
The applicant opposed the deferral, mistakenly believing the application would suspend the grievance procedure.
The Tribunal clarified that the grievance had already been referred to arbitration and would proceed.
Finding substantial overlap between the proceedings, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance arbitration.
Human rights application deferred pending conclusion of concurrent criminal proceeding involving overlapping facts.
The respondents requested that the human rights application be deferred pending the conclusion of a criminal proceeding involving overlapping facts.
The applicant opposed the deferral.
The Tribunal found that because the criminal charges stemmed from the same facts as the application, there was a significant potential for factual overlap and inconsistent findings.
The Tribunal exercised its discretion to defer the application until the conclusion of the criminal proceeding.
Interim order granted for production of arguably relevant employee attendance records; witness contact request denied.
The applicant in a human rights proceeding alleging discrimination based on disability sought an interim order for the production of attendance, performance, and payroll records of two other employees, as well as contact information for a potential witness.
The Tribunal granted the request for the employment records, finding them arguably relevant to the applicant's claim of differential treatment regarding attendance management.
The request for witness contact information was denied as premature.
Tribunal awards $1,000 in damages for respondent's conceded breach of settlement payment schedule.
The applicant filed an application alleging that the respondents breached the Minutes of Settlement by failing to make the final two installment payments in a timely manner.
The respondents conceded the breach, citing financial hardship, but provided no evidence to support this claim.
The Tribunal found that the respondents breached the settlement and ordered them to pay $1,000 in damages, inclusive of interest, to compensate the applicant for the delay and associated anxiety.
Tribunal awards $2,500 for respondent's four-and-a-half-month delay in paying settlement funds.
The applicant alleged that the respondent breached Minutes of Settlement by delaying the payment of general damages and failing to provide an original tax receipt for a charitable donation made in her name.
The Tribunal found that the respondent breached the settlement by failing to make the payment directly to the applicant until four and a half months after it was due.
Applying the factors from Saunders, the Tribunal awarded the applicant $2,500 in damages for the breach, considering the delay, the need to incur further legal expenses, and the resulting anxiety.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to attend summary hearing.
The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in the provision of goods and services because of sex.
The Tribunal directed a summary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.
The applicant failed to attend the scheduled teleconference hearing despite receiving proper notice.
Consequently, the application was dismissed as abandoned.
Respondent deemed to have accepted human rights allegations after failing to file a response.
The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code alleging reprisal.
The respondent Woolford was added to the proceeding but failed to file a Response despite multiple notices and extensions.
The Tribunal applied Rule 5.5 of its Rules of Procedure, deeming the respondent to have waived his right to notice and participation, and to have accepted all allegations in the application.