Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to Tribunal direction.
The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code against the respondents.
Following the corporate respondent's insolvency and its counsel's withdrawal from representing all respondents, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to indicate whether he wished to proceed.
The applicant failed to respond within the directed timeframe.
Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.
Tribunal orders partial production of applicants' psychological records to allow respondent to assess disability claims.
The respondent college filed a Request for an Order During Proceeding seeking production of all notes, records, and raw data from two psychologists who assessed the applicants for nonverbal learning disabilities.
The applicants consented to production for the period of August 2011 to August 2013, but the respondent sought the entire record, spanning over a decade, to test the validity of the diagnoses.
The Tribunal found it unnecessary to order the entire historical record at this stage, but ordered production of all records and raw data from January 1, 2009 onwards, with leave for the respondent to renew its request if necessary.
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 and a subsequent direction.
Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to attend mediation or respond.
The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation session and subsequently failed to respond to a Tribunal letter warning that the application might be deemed abandoned.
The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.
Tribunal removes opposing counsel as an individual respondent, finding no service relationship engages Code protection.
The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceeding to remove an individual respondent, who was their counsel in a prior human rights application, from the current reprisal applications.
The applicant alleged that the opposing counsel instigated criminal charges against him and sought to have his prior application dismissed based on those charges.
The Tribunal granted the request to remove the individual respondent, finding that there is no service or employment relationship between opposing counsel and an opposing party that would engage the protection of the Human Rights Code.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to Tribunal correspondence.
The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, which was deferred pending the conclusion of an ongoing grievance arbitration.
The Tribunal subsequently wrote to the applicant requesting an update on the status of the arbitration and warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal.
After the applicant failed to respond to multiple communications, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.
Human rights application deemed abandoned after applicant failed to respond to Tribunal correspondence.
The applicant filed a human rights application but failed to provide available dates for mediation or otherwise contact the Tribunal.
After the applicant failed to respond to a notice of intent to dismiss, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and closed the file.
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 failed to respond to the Notice by the specified deadline.
Application regarding bicycle storage dismissed at preliminary stage for failing to engage a protected ground.
The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in housing based on disability, receipt of public assistance, and reprisal, claiming the respondents failed to provide sufficient space for bicycles and refused to allow bicycles in elevators.
The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting the applicant denied having a disability and failed to link the bicycle storage issue to any protected ground.
The Tribunal dismissed the application at a preliminary stage, finding it plain and obvious that the allegations fell outside its jurisdiction.
Human rights application dismissed at preliminary stage for failing to allege specific acts of discrimination.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment, housing, and goods and services on various grounds.
The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application failed to identify specific acts of discrimination.
The applicant's lengthy and incoherent narrative and submissions did not connect his complaints to any grounds of discrimination under the Code.
The Tribunal dismissed the application at the preliminary stage, finding it plain and obvious that the complaints raised no Code issues.
Human rights application alleging failure to accommodate and harassment dismissed for no reasonable prospect of success.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, reprisal, and association.
The allegations centered on the applicant's return to work after a lengthy absence, including issues with job placement, union representation, and lunchroom accommodation for weight gain.
After the applicant presented his evidence at the hearing, the respondent moved to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.
The Tribunal found no evidence of discrimination or harassment in the respondent's actions and dismissed the application.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to attend mediation or respond to Tribunal.
The applicant filed an application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code.
The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation session and did not communicate with the Tribunal to explain the absence.
The Tribunal subsequently directed the applicant to advise of his intentions regarding the application, warning that failure to respond could result in abandonment.
The applicant did not respond.
The applicant failed to respond to the NOID by the specified deadline.
The Tribunal had previously deferred the proceeding pending the conclusion of an ongoing proceeding at the WSIB.
The Tribunal subsequently wrote to the applicant twice, 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 to the correspondence.
Human rights applications largely dismissed under section 45.1 due to prior grievance and OLRB proceedings.
The applicants, long-term hotel employees, alleged age and nationality discrimination when they were not transferred to the employer's new location.
They also alleged the union failed to fairly represent them.
The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the applications should be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, as the applicants had previously pursued grievances and duty of fair representation complaints at the Ontario Labour Relations Board.
The Tribunal dismissed the Gleeson application entirely and the Clarke application against the union, finding those issues had been appropriately dealt with in the prior proceedings.
The Clarke application against the hotel was permitted to proceed to mediation.
Estate lacks standing to bring human rights application for discrimination allegedly occurring after individual's death.
The applicant estate filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability regarding the placement of a deceased police officer's name on a memorial wall.
The respondents requested early dismissal on the grounds that the estate lacked standing.
The Tribunal held that an estate is not a 'person' capable of experiencing discrimination under the Human Rights Code, particularly where the alleged discrimination occurred after the individual's death.
The application was dismissed for lack of standing.
Human rights application regarding liver transplant policy dismissed for delay; bias claim against adjudicator rejected.
The applicant estate filed a human rights application alleging that a hospital policy requiring a six-month abstinence from alcohol before a liver transplant was discriminatory.
The application was filed nearly two years after the events in question.
The Tribunal dismissed the application for delay, finding that the applicant's ignorance of the law did not constitute a good faith explanation under section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code, as she had all the necessary information to make inquiries at the time.
The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant's request for the adjudicator to recuse himself, finding that his former employment with the Government of Ontario over 20 years ago was too remote to create a reasonable apprehension of bias.
Request to reactivate deferred human rights application denied pending respondents' review of employment standards decision.
The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceeding to reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending an Employment Standards Act proceeding.
The employment standards officer had rendered a decision, but the respondents opposed reactivation as they intended to seek a review of that decision before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.
The Tribunal denied the request to reactivate at this time, directing the respondents to confirm within 14 days that they had commenced the review, failing which the application would be reactivated.
Applicant's multiple requests for reconsideration and orders dismissed as premature and lacking merit.
The applicant filed 57 applications against multiple respondents.
The Tribunal directed summary hearings to determine if the applications should be dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success or as an abuse of process.
The applicant filed multiple requests for reconsideration of the Case Assessment Directions and requests for orders during the proceeding.
The Tribunal dismissed the requests for reconsideration because the directions were not final decisions.
The Tribunal also dismissed the requests for orders, finding they lacked merit and appeared intended to overwhelm the Tribunal, and directed the applicant to cease filing further requests pending the summary hearing.
The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) on the basis that the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.
The applicant failed to respond to the NOID by the specified deadlines and did not communicate with the Tribunal.
As a result, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.