Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to Tribunal correspondence.
The applicant filed a human rights application but subsequently requested to cancel the mediation date due to a car accident, indicating an intention to withdraw and refile.
Despite multiple directions and warnings from the Tribunal to confirm her intentions in writing, the applicant failed to respond.
Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.
Human rights application deferred pending resolution of concurrent union grievance on same facts.
The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination based on creed.
The respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the resolution of a concurrent grievance related to the same facts and issues.
The Tribunal noted its normal approach to defer applications where there is an ongoing grievance under a collective agreement, as grievance arbitrators have the authority to enforce human rights obligations.
The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned due to applicant's failure to comply with procedural directions.
The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.
The Tribunal issued Case Assessment Directions requiring the applicant to file a witness list, witness statements, and documents she intended to rely upon, warning that failure to comply could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.
The applicant failed to comply with the directions and made no attempt to contact the Tribunal.
Consequently, the application was dismissed as abandoned.
Human rights application dismissed as an abuse of process due to a binding Full and Final Release.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability.
The respondent requested early dismissal on the basis that the applicant had previously signed a Full and Final Release in exchange for a severance package.
The applicant argued he was stressed, not sleeping well, and lacked capacity when he signed the release.
The Tribunal found no evidence that the applicant lacked the legal capacity to execute the settlement documents or that the respondent had actual or constructive knowledge of any incapacity.
The Tribunal held that the release was binding and dismissed the application as an abuse of process.
Adjournment granted due to applicant counsel's scheduling conflict in Superior Court.
The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because his counsel was required to appear in Superior Court.
The respondents did not consent.
The Tribunal found that the scheduling conflict constituted an exceptional circumstance justifying an adjournment under its Practice Direction.
The request was granted and the parties were directed to propose new hearing dates.
Reconsideration granted after applicant failed to connect to telephone hearing; written submissions directed.
The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights applications after he failed to attend a scheduled telephone hearing.
The applicant claimed he attempted to connect to the conference call for three hours but was unsuccessful.
The respondent opposed the request, noting its own successful connection and the applicant's failure to contact the Tribunal.
The Tribunal found it appropriate to reconsider the dismissal, concluding that the applicant's failure to attend was likely not an intentional attempt to avoid the hearing.
The Tribunal directed the parties to provide written submissions on the substantive issues and the respondent's request to declare the applicant a vexatious litigant.
Human rights application alleging racial discrimination in failure to promote dismissed for lack of evidence.
The applicant, a black African employee, alleged discrimination on the basis of age, ancestry, ethnic origin, and race after he was not promoted to a management position and experienced other workplace changes, including restricted computer access.
The Tribunal found no evidence that the decisions were based on discriminatory grounds.
The respondents provided credible, non-discriminatory explanations for the workplace changes and the promotion decision, citing the applicant's resistance to new procedures following corporate mergers and the successful candidate's better adaptability.
The application was dismissed.
Human rights application alleging sex and disability discrimination dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex and disability, as well as reprisal, culminating in her termination.
After hearing the applicant's evidence in chief, the respondents moved to dismiss the application on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success.
The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.
The evidence showed a workplace dispute regarding a report and performance appraisals, but no evidence linking the employer's actions to the applicant's sex or disability.
The Tribunal also found no basis for the reprisal claim.
Human rights application alleging discriminatory termination and failure to accommodate dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.
The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, family status, and record of offences, claiming he was terminated for a one-day absence due to illness and that the respondents failed to accommodate his family status needs.
The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding it had no reasonable prospect of success.
The applicant provided no evidence linking his termination to a disability, and the respondents' unchallenged evidence showed he was terminated for absenteeism and indecision regarding competing employment offers.
The family status claim was also dismissed as hypothetical, as the applicant failed to provide advance notice of his absence despite being able to do so.
Late amendment to add systemic discrimination claims denied; amendment for post-complaint reprisal permitted.
The respondent school board filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to clarify the scope of the applicant's human rights complaint after the applicant attempted to introduce new allegations shortly before the hearing.
The applicant sought to add broad claims of systemic discrimination against South Asians and new allegations of reprisal.
The Tribunal granted the respondent's request in part, refusing to allow the late amendment for the systemic discrimination claims due to prejudice and delay.
However, the Tribunal permitted the amendment regarding post-complaint reprisal, finding it inextricably linked to the ongoing employment relationship and not prejudicial to the respondent.
Human rights application closed by Tribunal after parties confirmed settlement but failed to file withdrawal forms.
The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability.
The parties advised the Tribunal that the matter had been settled and settlement funds were received, but failed to file the required forms to withdraw or close the file.
The Tribunal closed the file based on the parties' advice that the case had settled.
Respondents given 14 days to file a response to human rights application or face default proceedings.
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 directing the respondents to file a response within 14 days, along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice to them pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.
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 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.
Human rights application deferred pending resolution of concurrent grievances raising the same issues.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination based on sex and reprisal.
The respondent school board requested that the application be deferred pending the resolution of five concurrent grievances covering substantially the same issues.
The applicant opposed deferral, arguing that the grievances did not address the personal liability of the individual respondent.
The Tribunal granted the deferral, noting its general approach to defer applications where there is an ongoing grievance based on the same facts and issues, as grievance arbitrators have the authority to enforce human rights obligations.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to provide directed submissions on delay.
The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, and ethnic origin.
Following an interim decision that dismissed part of the application, the applicant was directed to provide written submissions on the issue of delay for the remaining allegations.
The applicant failed to respond to the initial direction and subsequent Case Assessment Directions sent by mail and email.
Tribunal awards $3,000 for failure to recall employee due to perceived disability.
The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability after he was not recalled to work following a layoff.
The applicant had suffered a workplace injury and took time off for physiotherapy.
The Tribunal found that the respondents' perception that the applicant was physically unfit for work was a factor in their decision not to recall him, constituting discrimination.
However, the Tribunal also found that the applicant would not have been recalled regardless due to significant non-discriminatory workplace conflict.
The Tribunal awarded $3,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, but denied lost wages.
Personal respondent given 14 days to file a Response or face consequences of non-participation.
The applicant filed a human rights application against the corporate respondent and two personal respondents.
One personal respondent failed to file a Response by the deadline.
The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the non-responding party to file a Response within 14 days, warning that failure to do so could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming him to have accepted the allegations.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to Tribunal directions.
A scheduled hearing was cancelled after the applicant disclosed a sensitive personal matter.
The Tribunal placed the matter in abeyance for six months and directed the applicant to report back.
When the applicant failed to report or respond to subsequent directions, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.
Adjournment request denied as pending WSIB decision was irrelevant to past breach of settlement allegations.
The applicant filed an application alleging that the respondents breached a settlement agreement by failing to accommodate his disability when they denied his request to be moved from his current work location.
The applicant requested an adjournment of the hearing on the basis that the WSIB was considering a claim regarding a psychological injury going back to 1992.
The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, agreeing with the respondents that information not available to the respondents at the time they made their accommodation decisions is irrelevant to whether they breached the settlement agreement at the material times.