Reconsideration request dismissed; adjudicator's status as university alumnus did not create reasonable apprehension of bias.
The applicant requested reconsideration of an interim decision that denied an expedited hearing and directed a summary hearing.
The applicant also alleged that the adjudicator was biased because he graduated from the respondent university's law school.
The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that the interim decision was not a final decision and therefore could not be reconsidered.
The Tribunal also dismissed the bias claim, concluding that a reasonable person would not apprehend bias based merely on the adjudicator having obtained a graduate degree from the respondent's law school many years prior.
Human rights application dismissed as out of time due to unexplained 13-year delay.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex and disability, relating to events that occurred in the late 1990s and her termination in May 2000.
The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application was filed more than 13 years after the last alleged incident.
Although the applicant provided medical evidence of a mental health disability and hospitalizations between 1999 and 2006, she did not establish that she was incapable of filing the application for the entire 13-year period.
The Tribunal found no good faith explanation for the delay and dismissed the application as out of time.
Human rights application against police association for withdrawing grievance dismissed; no evidence of disability discrimination.
The applicant, a police officer with a disability, alleged that her police association and its executive members discriminated against her by withdrawing from her harassment grievance arbitration.
She also alleged a failure to accommodate her disability during settlement discussions and discriminatory mistreatment at membership meetings.
The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no evidence that the decision to withdraw was tainted by discriminatory considerations, but rather was based on legitimate financial concerns and a breakdown in the relationship.
The Tribunal also found no failure to accommodate and concluded the allegations of mistreatment were unsubstantiated.
Request to expedite hearing granted where respondent did not deny allegations and may be liquidating assets.
The applicant requested an interim remedy to prevent the respondent from liquidating assets and a request to expedite the hearing, alleging the respondent was organizing his affairs to leave the country.
The Tribunal denied the interim remedy request but granted the request to expedite the hearing, noting the respondent did not deny the allegations in the application and the only issue in dispute appeared to be the appropriate remedy.
Migrant worker awarded $23,500 after being called a racial slur and terminated in reprisal.
The applicant, a migrant worker from St. Lucia employed under the Seasonal Agricultural Workers Program, alleged discrimination and reprisal by his employer.
He claimed that an owner and a supervisor referred to him and his co-workers as 'monkeys' and that he was terminated and repatriated after complaining about the racial slurs.
The respondents alleged he was terminated for a propensity for violence following an altercation.
The Tribunal preferred the applicant's evidence, finding that the racial slurs were made and that the termination was a direct reprisal for his human rights complaint.
The Tribunal awarded $5,500 for lost wages and $18,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and ordered the employer to implement a human rights policy and undergo training.
Requests to expedite and for interim remedy denied; summary hearing directed to assess prospect of success.
The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to contracts because of disability, along with requests to expedite and for an interim remedy of $50,000 for legal fees.
The Tribunal denied the request to expedite without reasons, as permitted by its rules.
The Tribunal also denied the request for an interim remedy, finding the applicant failed to establish that the application had merit or that the balance of harm favoured granting the remedy.
Noting that the applicant's narrative largely concerned actions by police and others rather than the respondent university, the Tribunal directed a summary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.
The Tribunal also directed the applicant to cease inappropriate and vexatious communications.
Respondents given 14 days to file a Response after failing to meet the initial deadline.
The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondents.
The respondents failed to file a Response by the deadline set in the Notice of Application.
The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondents of the consequences of failing to participate under Rule 5.5 and granted them 14 days to file a Response with an explanation for the delay.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to file a Reply.
The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.
After the respondent filed a Response, the applicant failed to file a Reply as required by Rule 9.1 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.
The applicant also failed to comply with a Case Assessment Direction requiring her to file a Reply.
As the applicant made no contact with the Tribunal, the application was dismissed as abandoned.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to Tribunal directions.
The respondents filed a response requesting deferral pending a Ministry of Labour matter, and a request for a summary hearing.
The Tribunal directed the applicant to file submissions in response to both requests, warning that failure to do so could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.
The applicant failed to respond to the directions or communicate with the Tribunal.
Consequently, the application was dismissed as abandoned.
Reconsideration denied; applicant failed to update contact information and did not establish lack of notice.
The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision that dismissed his human rights application as abandoned.
He claimed he did not receive the Tribunal's communications because the respondents intercepted his mail, though he had previously indicated he moved without updating his address.
The Tribunal found the applicant failed to establish that he did not receive notice through no fault of his own, as parties are expected to keep their contact information current.
The request for reconsideration was denied.
Human rights applications dismissed as abandoned after applicants failed to file settlement forms or respond.
The applicants filed human rights applications alleging discrimination in employment.
The parties settled the matters at mediation but failed to execute a Form 25 at the time.
Despite multiple requests and a Case Assessment Direction warning of potential dismissal, the applicants failed to file the required form or communicate with the Tribunal.
The Tribunal found the applications abandoned and dismissed them.
Summary hearing request partially granted; main discrimination claim proceeds but video retention allegation dismissed.
The respondent transit commission requested a summary hearing to dismiss the applicant's human rights application, which alleged racial discrimination by a streetcar operator.
The applicant claimed the operator made rude comments and washed her hands after the applicant asked a question.
The Tribunal found that the core allegations of discrimination could not be dismissed at a summary hearing, as it was possible an inference of discrimination could be drawn.
However, the Tribunal dismissed the applicant's allegation regarding the respondent's failure to retain video evidence, finding no evidence that the failure was unreasonable or discriminatory.
The main allegations were directed to proceed to a full hearing.
Request for summary dismissal denied; jurisdiction and reasonable prospect of success not plainly lacking.
The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the human rights application, arguing that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the dispute was contractual and involved an entity in the Maldives, and that the application had no reasonable prospect of success.
The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding it was not plain and obvious that jurisdiction was lacking given the alleged involvement of the respondent's Ottawa head office.
The Tribunal also found that the allegations, if proven, could support an inference of discrimination, and directed the applicant to seek leave if she intended to amend her application to include the social area of employment.
Human rights application alleging racial profiling in issuance of speeding ticket dismissed for no reasonable prospect of success.
The applicant alleged that he was targeted and issued a speeding ticket because of his colour, ethnic origin, place of origin, and race.
The respondent requested the dismissal of the Application on the basis that the substance of the Application was determined in a prior trial where the applicant was convicted of speeding.
A summary hearing was held to determine if the Application had a reasonable prospect of success.
The Tribunal found that the applicant could point to no evidence that would tend to establish discrimination, and his case was based on mere speculation.
The Application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.
Request to reactivate human rights application granted following conclusion of grievance procedure.
The applicant filed a Request to reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of a grievance.
The grievance procedure concluded and the applicant's bargaining agent decided not to refer the grievance to arbitration.
The respondents took no position on the request.
The Tribunal found it appropriate to reactivate the application.
Reconsideration request denied as applicant merely re-argued points and failed to meet threshold criteria.
The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his application for lack of jurisdiction.
The original decision found that the applicant's allegations regarding the respondent's failure to provide information about his mechanic's licence did not disclose specific acts of discrimination.
The Tribunal denied the reconsideration request, finding that the applicant merely re-argued points already considered and failed to establish any of the threshold criteria under Rule 26.5.
CPSO granted intervenor status in human rights application stemming from testimony at a discipline hearing.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal based on representations made by the respondents during a discipline hearing before the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO).
The CPSO requested to intervene, arguing that testimony in its proceedings is inadmissible in civil proceedings under the Regulated Health Professions Act and is subject to absolute privilege.
The Tribunal granted the CPSO's request to intervene, noting its significant interest in ensuring witnesses can testify without fear of reprisal.
Respondents given 14 days to file a Response or face consequences of non-participation.
The applicant filed an Application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.
The Tribunal issued an Interim Decision directing the respondents to file a Response within 14 days, warning that failure to do so could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming the respondents to have accepted the allegations.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to provide updated contact information.
The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to goods and services because of disability.
The Tribunal made multiple attempts to contact the applicant and directed him to provide updated contact information, warning that failure to do so would result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.
The applicant failed to respond to the directions.
The Tribunal found that the applicant had abandoned the application and dismissed it.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned following settlement of related civil action.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal and discrimination based on family and marital status.
The Tribunal had previously deferred the application pending a related civil action.
Counsel for the personal respondent later advised the Tribunal that the parties had settled all matters, providing a copy of the release.
After the applicant failed to respond to a Case Assessment Direction, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.