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.
After the applicant failed to respond to the NOID by the extended deadline, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.
Human rights application deferred pending completion of related Employment Standards Act proceeding.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of ancestry, place of origin, and sex, related to her termination following a pregnancy and parental leave.
The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application because the applicant had an ongoing proceeding under the Employment Standards Act concerning the same pregnancy and parental leave issues.
Despite the applicant's objection that her human rights claim included additional grounds, the Tribunal found substantial factual overlap and deferred the application pending the completion of the ESA proceeding.
Tribunal orders production of workforce gender composition data but denies request for gender-identified competency scores.
The applicant in a human rights proceeding alleging discrimination based on marital status, sex, and reprisal brought a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking the production of documents.
The Tribunal ordered the respondent to produce information regarding the gender makeup of its workforce during the applicant's employment, finding it arguably relevant to the workplace context.
However, the Tribunal denied the request for the gender identity of employees' IBI Competency scores, finding it not arguably relevant to the applicant's claim that his termination was a reprisal for an earlier sexual harassment complaint.
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 applicant failed to respond to the NOID by the specified deadline.
Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.
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 respond to the Notice by the specified deadline.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to Tribunal directions.
The applicant filed an application alleging a breach of settlement and seeking the lifting of a trespass notice.
The respondents filed a request to amend their response, asserting the issue had been resolved to the applicant's satisfaction.
The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to confirm if he intended to proceed and to provide particulars.
The applicant failed to respond to the directions.
The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.
Application alleging breach of settlement dismissed in part; potential breach regarding submissions to Senate remains.
The applicant alleged that the respondents breached Minutes of Settlement (MOS) resolving a prior human rights application regarding his need to record university classes for disability accommodation.
The applicant sought to set aside the MOS and re-open the prior application.
Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed most of the allegations, finding no reasonable prospect of success that the respondents failed to make reasonable efforts or breached the MOS in their handling of his accommodations or the independent review of university policies.
However, the Tribunal found a potential breach regarding the applicant's right to make written submissions to the University Senate on the reviewer's recommendations, and directed the parties to make submissions on next steps.
Request for production of transit operator's identity and personnel file denied as irrelevant fishing expedition.
The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking the identity and complete personnel file of the streetcar operator involved in the incident giving rise to her human rights application.
The respondent objected, arguing the identity was irrelevant at this stage and the request for the personnel file was a fishing expedition for character evidence.
The Tribunal agreed with the respondent, finding that evidence of other complaints would only delay the resolution of the dispute and that the operator's identity was not relevant at this stage.
The request for document production was denied.
Request for document production largely denied as documents were irrelevant, already produced, or destroyed.
The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking the production of documents related to alleged systemic discrimination against men and the investigation of competing harassment complaints.
The Tribunal denied the request for documents relating to systemic discrimination, finding them irrelevant as the central allegation concerned a specific incident.
The Tribunal also declined to order production of investigation documents that had already been produced or destroyed.
The respondent was directed to respond to two specific requests regarding the gender makeup of its workforce and the gender of individuals on a competency evaluation list.
Request for interim remedy to return applicant to previous work location denied.
The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination based on disability, family status, and reprisal, and sought an interim remedy to be returned to his previous work location pending the hearing.
The applicant had previously agreed to work at three specific locations, including the one he was transferred to, as an accommodation for his family status needs.
The Tribunal denied the request for an interim remedy, finding that the applicant failed to establish that the application regarding the transfer had merit, that the balance of harm favoured granting the request, or that the interim remedy was necessary to further the remedial objects of the Code.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to Tribunal communications.
The Tribunal had previously deferred the application pending the conclusion of related proceedings.
The Tribunal subsequently requested an update from the applicant regarding the status of the other proceedings, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal for abandonment.
The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's letter and a follow-up telephone message.
Application dismissed as the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over discrimination claims based on unpardoned criminal records.
The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the ground of record of offences after his application was screened out because he disclosed an unpardoned criminal conviction.
The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting that the Human Rights Code only protects individuals with a criminal record for which a pardon has been granted or a provincial offence.
As the applicant's record was for an unpardoned criminal offence, the Tribunal found it plain and obvious that the application was outside its jurisdiction and dismissed it.
The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to be filed out of time.
The applicant failed to respond to the Notice and subsequent Case Assessment Directions.
The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.
Union's request to intervene in member's human rights application granted.
The applicant's bargaining agent, the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 870, filed a Request to Intervene in a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability and race.
The respondent took no position and the applicant did not respond.
Noting that a union typically has an interest in such applications, particularly where reinstatement is sought, the Tribunal granted the Request to Intervene.
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 inquiring about his intentions regarding the application.
As a result, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to attend mediation or respond to correspondence.
The Tribunal scheduled a mediation session, which the applicant failed to attend without explanation.
The Tribunal subsequently sent a letter directing the applicant to advise of his intentions and warning that failure to respond within ten days could result in the application being deemed abandoned.
The applicant did not respond.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to Tribunal inquiries.
The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, which was deferred pending the conclusion of other legal proceedings.
The Tribunal later wrote to the applicant requesting an update on the other proceedings and warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal for abandonment.
The applicant failed to respond or communicate with the Tribunal.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned following the applicant's death and failure to appoint an estate trustee.
The applicant filed a human rights application but subsequently passed away.
The Tribunal wrote to the applicant's alternate contact requesting confirmation of an authorized estate trustee to act on behalf of the estate, noting that the Tribunal cannot proceed without one.
When no response was received by the specified deadline, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.