Reconsideration request dismissed as applicant failed to meet threshold criteria and merely repeated previous arguments.
The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision that dismissed her human rights application for being filed 13 years after the last alleged incident of discrimination.
The Tribunal found that the applicant merely repeated arguments previously made and failed to establish any of the threshold criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.
The request for reconsideration was dismissed.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to comply with document exchange rules.
The applicant failed to comply with the Tribunal's Rules 16 and 17 regarding the delivery of witness lists, witness statements, and documents.
After being issued a Case Assessment Direction warning that the application could be dismissed if she did not comply, the applicant failed to respond or communicate with the Tribunal.
The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.
Human rights application dismissed due to applicant's inability to locate and serve the respondents.
The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of sex.
The Tribunal's notices to the respondents were returned as the business had closed and the personal respondent had moved.
The applicant was directed to find alternative contact information or provide proof of personal delivery, but failed to do so.
The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that it would be procedurally unfair to proceed without effective notice to the respondents.
Human rights application dismissed for delay as applicant failed to establish good faith explanation.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability after his doctor terminated the doctor-patient relationship.
The application was filed almost two years after the last incident.
The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed for delay.
Finding that the applicant failed to establish a good faith explanation for the delay, the Tribunal dismissed the application as out of time.
Summary dismissal denied; applicants' claims regarding worksite drug testing policy allowed to proceed.
The applicants, who were employed by contractors at the respondent's worksite, alleged discrimination with respect to employment because of disability.
The respondent requested that the applications be dismissed at a summary hearing for having no reasonable prospect of success, arguing that the applicants were removed from the worksite for failing to comply with its drug and alcohol policy.
The Tribunal found that the applications could not be dismissed at this preliminary stage, as the applicants' allegations regarding the circumstances of the testing requests could potentially shift the burden to the respondent to explain its actions.
The Tribunal also found merit in the argument that the respondent's policy affected the applicants' employment, despite the respondent not being their direct employer.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned due to applicant's failure to comply with Tribunal directions.
The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in the provision of goods and services.
The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to file a witness list, witness statements, and documents pursuant to Rules 16 and 17, warning that failure to do so could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.
The applicant failed to comply with the directions or communicate with the Tribunal.
Consequently, the application was dismissed as abandoned.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to Tribunal directions.
The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.
The parties reached a tentative settlement but failed to file a Form 25 confirming the settlement.
After the applicant failed to respond to multiple Tribunal directions and communications requesting a status update or the settlement form, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.
Human rights application dismissed; termination was due to performance issues, not perceived disability.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of perceived disability.
The applicant claimed he was terminated after fainting at work following a public reprimand.
The respondent maintained the termination was due to long-standing performance issues, culminating in a poor maintenance audit on the day of the fainting incident.
The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no evidence that the fainting incident or any perceived disability was a factor in the decision to terminate the applicant's employment.
Employer ordered to pay over $59,000 for egregious sexual harassment and assault of employee.
The applicant alleged that her employer, the respondent, sexually harassed and assaulted her in the workplace, leading her to leave her employment.
The respondent did not dispute the allegations and had previously pled guilty to criminal harassment.
The Tribunal found that the respondent violated the applicant's right to be free from discrimination in employment on the basis of sex.
The Tribunal awarded the applicant $29,120 for lost wages and $30,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.
Applicant ordered to provide complete particulars of discrimination allegations within 14 days.
The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking particulars of the applicant's allegations of discrimination and reprisal.
The Tribunal found that the application lacked specific facts linking the respondents' actions to the alleged Code grounds.
The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide complete particulars of her allegations within 14 days, failing which the application may be dismissed as abandoned.
The applicant filed a human rights application but subsequently failed to provide updated contact information to the respondents or respond to Tribunal directions.
Despite multiple warnings that failure to respond could result in the application being deemed abandoned, the applicant did not reply.
The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to provide requested submissions despite extensions.
The applicant filed an Application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.
The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide written submissions identifying specific acts of discrimination, as the Application failed to do so.
Despite being granted multiple extensions of time, the applicant failed to provide the requested submissions.
Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the Application abandoned and dismissed it.
The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide written submissions identifying specific acts of discrimination, warning that failure to do so could result in dismissal for abandonment.
Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicants failed to comply with Tribunal directions.
The applicants filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to services by the respondent school board.
Following a case management conference call, the Tribunal directed the applicants to produce certain documents, including Ontario School Records and Children's Aid Society files, and to provide particulars of their allegations.
The applicants failed to comply with any of the Tribunal's directions and did not communicate with the Tribunal.
Consequently, the Tribunal found that the applicants had abandoned their application and dismissed it.
Respondent given 10 days to file a response to human rights application before proceeding undefended.
The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.
The respondent failed to file a response by the deadline.
The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondent to file a response within 10 days, warning that failure to do so could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming the respondent to have accepted the allegations.
Respondents granted 14 days to file a response to human rights application after missing initial deadline.
The respondents failed to file a response by the directed deadline.
The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondents that failure to participate could lead to orders against them without further notice, pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.
The respondents were granted 14 days to file a response along with an explanation for the delay.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to attend mediation or respond to correspondence.
The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to goods, services, and facilities based on disability.
The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation and subsequently failed to respond to the Tribunal's direction to advise whether he intended to proceed with the application.
Tribunal denied reconsideration of an interim order and directed a summary hearing on its own initiative.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination based on race, colour, and reprisal.
The applicant requested reconsideration of a previous decision denying a request to expedite the hearing.
The Tribunal denied the reconsideration request, noting that reconsideration is only available for final decisions.
On its own initiative, the Tribunal directed a summary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success, citing potential issues with timeliness, lack of a link to Code grounds, and insufficient evidence of reprisal.
Request for reconsideration dismissed; section 34(11) is a mandatory jurisdictional bar regardless of civil claim outcome.
The applicant requested reconsideration of an interim decision that dismissed part of his human rights application under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code due to a concurrent civil claim.
The applicant argued that the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence because the failure of the civil claim would defeat the Code claim.
The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that section 34(11) is a mandatory jurisdictional bar and the Tribunal cannot consider the potential outcome of the civil litigation.
The Tribunal also declined the applicant's request to clarify that past procedural failures were the fault of his former counsel.
Cross-applications for breach of human rights settlement dismissed for insufficient evidence of disparagement or confidentiality breach.
The parties filed cross-applications alleging breaches of a prior settlement agreement.
The applicant alleged that officials of the respondent Foundation made disparaging remarks about him and breached confidentiality.
The respondent Foundation alleged that the applicant breached confidentiality and made disparaging remarks.
Following a hearing, the Tribunal dismissed both applications.
The Tribunal found insufficient evidence to establish that the respondents made the alleged disparaging remarks.
Furthermore, there was no evidence that the applicant breached the confidentiality provision, and his remarks did not constitute disparagement under the Minutes of Settlement.