Tribunal declined to dismiss application at preliminary stage, finding jurisdiction not plainly lacking.
The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of family status.
The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, questioning its jurisdiction as the application did not identify specific acts of discrimination.
After receiving the applicant's submissions, the Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the application was outside its jurisdiction.
The application was ordered to be delivered to the respondent.
Request to amend remedies granted; issue of adding individual respondent deferred.
The applicant filed a Request for Order seeking to add the principal owner of the respondent corporation as an individual respondent and to substantially amend the remedies sought in her human rights application.
The respondent opposed the amendment to remedies, arguing it affected its risk assessment and mediation position.
The Tribunal granted the request to amend the remedies, finding no prejudice as a hearing date had not yet been set and the Tribunal is not bound by the remedies sought in the application.
The issue of adding the individual respondent was deferred to the parties or the hearing adjudicator.
Human rights application deferred pending conclusion of concurrent grievance arbitration raising same discrimination issues.
The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability.
The respondent sought early dismissal or deferral of the application pending the conclusion of a concurrent grievance arbitration.
The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the facts and issues in the application and the grievance, which also alleged discrimination.
The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process.
Human rights applications dismissed as abandoned after applicants failed to file a Reply.
The applicants filed applications under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.
The respondent requested dismissal based on the defence in section 18.1 of the Code.
The Tribunal directed the applicants to file a Reply addressing the request to dismiss, warning that failure to do so could result in the applications being dismissed as abandoned.
The applicants failed to file a Reply within the required time.
The Tribunal dismissed the applications as abandoned.
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 the application on the basis that it appeared to be outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.
The applicant was directed to respond but failed to do so.
Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.
Vexatious litigant's new applications held in abeyance; communication restricted to regular mail to prevent abuse.
The applicant, previously declared a vexatious litigant, filed nine new applications alleging discrimination against various respondents.
The Tribunal found that these applications followed the same pattern of serial, unsupported allegations that led to the prior vexatious litigant declaration.
The Tribunal ordered that the applications were incomplete and would not be processed until the applicant complied with the requirement to seek leave and demonstrate the applications were not an abuse of process.
Furthermore, to prevent ongoing abuse of process, the Tribunal directed that the applicant may only communicate with the Tribunal by regular mail.
Application alleging breach of settlement dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to directions.
The applicant filed an application alleging that the respondents breached a settlement agreement.
After the Tribunal issued multiple Case Assessment Directions requiring the applicant to respond to the respondents' submissions and proposals, the applicant failed to communicate with the Tribunal.
Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.
Tribunal declined to make anticipatory order preventing future applications upon withdrawal of current application.
The applicant filed a Request to Withdraw the Application on the scheduled date for a Summary Hearing.
The respondent sought an order preventing the applicant from filing a future application on the same facts, arguing it would be an abuse of process.
The Tribunal denied the respondent's request, noting it does not normally make anticipatory orders, but allowed the respondent to renew the request if a future application is filed.
The Application was withdrawn.
Tribunal dismissed 2010 discrimination allegations as out of time but allowed 2013 allegations to proceed.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on incidents in 2010 and 2013.
The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss regarding the 2010 allegations as they appeared to be filed beyond the one-year limitation period.
The applicant provided no explanation for the delay concerning the 2010 incident.
The Tribunal dismissed the 2010 allegations as out of time with no good faith explanation for the delay, while allowing the 2013 allegations to proceed to the next stage.
Human rights application deferred pending conclusion of concurrent criminal proceedings involving overlapping facts.
The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the human rights application pending the conclusion of a concurrent criminal proceeding against the personal respondent for sexual assault and criminal harassment.
The organizational respondent opposed deferral, arguing the remedies in the two proceedings were different.
The Tribunal deferred the application, finding that the subject matter largely overlapped and deferral was appropriate to avoid inconsistent results on critical facts.
Request to amend human rights application granted on consent.
The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.
Following an unsuccessful mediation, the applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to amend the Application to clarify and add to her allegations and amend the remedies sought.
The respondent consented to the amendments, reserving the right to respond after documentary disclosure.
The Tribunal granted the Request on consent.
Tribunal declined to dismiss human rights application at preliminary stage for apparent delay.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination based on colour, race, family status, and reprisal.
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.
After reviewing the applicant's written submissions explaining the delay, the Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the application was outside its jurisdiction.
The Tribunal directed that the application be delivered to the respondent.
Notice of Intent to Dismiss for delay not granted; application to proceed to respondent.
The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of family status.
The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) due to potential delay.
After reviewing the applicant's response, the Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious at this preliminary stage that the application was outside its jurisdiction.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to Tribunal correspondence.
The Tribunal had previously deferred the application pending the conclusion of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Act proceeding.
The Tribunal subsequently wrote to the applicant requesting an update on the status of the other proceeding and warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal.
The applicant failed to respond or communicate with the Tribunal.
Respondent ordered to immediately produce arguably relevant documents after failing to comply with Tribunal Rules.
The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking an order requiring the respondent to deliver all arguably relevant documents in its possession, as required by Rule 16.1 of the Tribunal's Rules.
The respondent failed to respond to the Request or provide the documents by the deadline.
The Tribunal ordered the respondent to immediately deliver the documents, noting that consequences for failing to comply with the Rules could be addressed at the hearing.
After the respondent requested to reschedule mediation, the Tribunal directed the parties to select new dates.
The applicant failed to respond to this direction and a subsequent warning letter.
Request for document production denied as premature because the underlying human rights application was deferred.
The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking the production of documents in a human rights application that had been previously deferred pending the conclusion of a grievance arbitration.
The respondents opposed the request.
The Tribunal denied the request as premature because the application remained deferred, noting that the applicant could bring the application back on after the grievance process concluded.
The parties agreed to mediation, but the respondent requested a rescheduling.
The Tribunal directed the parties to select new dates, but the applicant failed to respond.
After a subsequent warning that the application would be deemed abandoned if no response was received, the applicant still did not respond.
The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.
Human rights application alleging discrimination in disability benefits process dismissed for no reasonable prospect of success.
The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming she was improperly asked questions about her disability by the respondent insurer when applying for short-term disability benefits.
The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.
The Tribunal found that the applicant received her full entitlement to benefits and failed to provide facts that could link the requests for information to a Code violation.
The application was dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to Tribunal inquiries.
The applicant filed a human rights application which was deferred pending the conclusion of a grievance arbitration.
The Tribunal later requested an update on the status of the arbitration, warning that failure to respond could result in abandonment.
The applicant did not respond, while the respondent confirmed a settlement had been reached in the arbitration.