Human rights application dismissed as untimely because it was filed more than one year after dismissal.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on perceived disability, culminating in his dismissal.
The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application as untimely.
The Tribunal found that the application was filed more than one year after the applicant's dismissal.
The Tribunal rejected the applicant's argument that subsequent grievance meetings constituted new incidents of discrimination, noting that the grievance process does not engage the Code and the request to amend the application was itself untimely.
The application was dismissed.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to attend summary hearing.
The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of record of offences and disability.
A summary hearing was scheduled to determine if the application had no reasonable prospect of success.
The applicant failed to attend the hearing and did not communicate with the Tribunal.
Consequently, the application was dismissed as abandoned.
Respondents deemed to have accepted human rights allegations after failing to file a Response.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.
The respondents failed to file a Response despite multiple notices and directions from the Tribunal.
The Tribunal declared the respondents in default, deemed them to have accepted all allegations in the Application, and waived their rights to further notice or participation.
A case management conference call was scheduled to determine the next steps for the applicant to prove her case and seek remedies.
Human rights application dismissed; no employment or accommodation relationship with children's aid society.
The applicant alleged discrimination in employment and accommodation based on perceived disability and record of offences, as well as reprisal, after the respondent children's aid society conducted a criminal background check and temporarily threatened to remove a foster child from the applicant's shared residence.
The Tribunal dismissed the application following a summary hearing, finding no reasonable prospect of success.
The Tribunal held there was no employment relationship, no Code-protected relationship regarding accommodation, and no evidence that the respondent's actions were a reprisal for the applicant asserting Code rights.
Early dismissal denied; WSIA proceeding did not appropriately deal with the substance of the human rights application.
The respondents requested the early dismissal of a human rights application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance of the application was dealt with in a Workplace Safety and Insurance Act (WSIA) proceeding.
The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the WSIA proceeding, which focused on whether the applicant's complaints were work-related, did not address the core human rights issues of failure to accommodate and constructive dismissal.
The request for early dismissal was denied.
Reconsideration request dismissed as applicant failed to provide new evidence of alleged bias or conspiracy.
The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application as abandoned after she left the hearing.
She alleged a conspiracy between the Vice-chair and the respondent, and argued the Vice-chair was biased and wrongly removed her representative.
The Tribunal found no new facts or evidence to justify reconsideration, noting that the issues had already been fully canvassed and decided.
The request for reconsideration was dismissed.
Reconsideration request dismissed due to unexplained 11-month delay and lack of new determinative facts.
The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision dismissing her application as abandoned.
The request was filed 11 months after the 30-day deadline.
The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no reasonable explanation for the delay and noting that the new incidents alleged by the applicant bore no relation to the original dismissal.
Reconsideration request dismissed due to unexplained five-month delay and lack of determinative new facts.
The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application.
The request was filed five months after the decision, well beyond the 30-day deadline.
The Tribunal found no reasonable explanation for the delay, noting the request appeared to be based on new, unrelated incidents.
The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration as it was out of time and failed to meet the requirements of Rule 26.5.
Tribunal orders sealing of record and closed hearings to protect identity of child in protection proceedings.
The respondent requested an early dismissal of the human rights application and an order to seal the record, close hearings to the public, and anonymize the title of proceedings to protect the identity of a child involved in child protection proceedings.
The Tribunal granted the request for a sealing order, closed hearings, and anonymization pursuant to the Child and Family Services Act and the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.
The Tribunal also directed that a summary/preliminary hearing be scheduled to determine whether the application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success or because the substance was appropriately dealt with in another proceeding.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to attend mediation or respond.
The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.
The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation session and did not respond to subsequent correspondence from the Tribunal directing her to advise of her intentions.
The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.
Respondents' request for early access to applicant's medical records before filing a response denied.
The applicant alleged employment discrimination based on race and related grounds, specifically citing discriminatory name-calling by a supervisor.
Instead of filing a Response, the respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking extensive access to the applicant's medical records from the employer's occupational health file.
The Tribunal dismissed the request as entirely without merit, finding that the medical records were largely irrelevant to the primary issue of name-calling and that the lack of such records did not prevent the respondents from meaningfully responding to the Application.
The respondents were ordered to file their Response within 14 days.
Tribunal waived time requirements and granted request to reactivate deferred human rights application.
The applicant filed a request to reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending a grievance arbitration.
The respondent opposed the request because it was filed approximately a month after the 60-day period contemplated by Rule 14 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.
The Tribunal exercised its discretion to waive the time requirements, granted the request to reactivate the application, and directed the respondent to file its Response and Request for Summary Hearing.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to jurisdictional notice.
The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code against OC Transpo.
The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the matter appeared to fall under federal jurisdiction.
The applicant failed to respond to the Notice.
Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.
Application dismissed; a record of professional complaints does not constitute a 'record of offences' under the Code.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of record of offences.
He claimed the respondent regulatory organization forwarded a record of complaints about his conduct to prospective employers, preventing him from gaining employment.
The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the applicant had never been convicted of an offence, and a record of complaints does not meet the statutory definition of 'record of offences' under section 10 of the Human Rights Code.
The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it plain and obvious that it lacked jurisdiction to deal with allegations of unfairness not grounded in a protected Code ground.
Request to add respondents and amend human rights application granted at early stage of proceeding.
The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceeding to add two respondents, amend the application to include the social area of goods and services, and add related allegations.
The Tribunal granted the requests, noting that the application was at an early stage, mediation had not taken place, and the proposed new respondents did not object to being added.
Human rights application alleging discriminatory trespass notice dismissed for no reasonable prospect of success.
The applicant alleged discrimination with respect to goods, services, and facilities on the basis of disability, claiming the respondents issued a trespass notice against her at a courthouse specifically to exacerbate her PTSD.
The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.
The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to point to any evidence that would establish a link between the issuance of the trespass notice and her disability.
The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.
The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation session and subsequently failed to respond to a Tribunal direction inquiring about their intentions with respect to the application.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to Notice of Intent to Dismiss.
The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.
The applicant failed to respond to the Notice by the required deadline.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to maintain contact with the Tribunal.
Correspondence and notices of mediation sent to the applicant were returned marked 'moved address unknown'.
The applicant failed to respond to Tribunal directions requesting updated contact information and mutually agreeable dates for mediation.
Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned pursuant to Rule 5.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.
Reconsideration request denied as issues were already adjudicated by the Landlord and Tenant Board.
The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code on the basis that the substance of the application had been appropriately dealt with in a prior proceeding before the Landlord and Tenant Board.
The applicant argued there was new evidence and that the issues were not dealt with in the other proceeding.
The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet the threshold criteria for reconsideration, noting that even if the new evidence were accepted, the application would still be dismissed because the issues had already been adjudicated by the Landlord and Tenant Board.
The request for reconsideration was denied.