Human rights application dismissed for abandonment after applicant failed to comply with Tribunal directions.
The applicant's mother filed a human rights application on behalf of her infant daughter.
Following a court decision granting Crown wardship of the child to the respondent agency, the Tribunal directed the mother to confirm her intention to proceed and her status to do so.
The mother failed to properly copy the respondents on her response and did not identify the basis for her status, despite warnings from the Tribunal.
Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.
Human rights application dismissed as out of time and lacking specific allegations of discrimination.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on citizenship, place of origin, and reprisal.
The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to be filed more than one year after the last alleged incident and failed to identify specific acts of discrimination by the respondent.
The Tribunal found that the applicant did not provide a good faith explanation for the delay, which related to events from the 1970s and 1980s.
The application was dismissed as being outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.
Reconsideration request denied as applicant failed to prove she did not receive notice of proceedings.
The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision dismissing her human rights application as abandoned.
She claimed she did not receive notice of the required information due to homelessness.
The respondents objected, citing prior indulgences, delays, and a lack of evidence.
The Tribunal found that the applicant had communicated via email and failed to explain why she did not receive the emailed directions.
The request for reconsideration was denied as the applicant failed to establish that she did not receive timely notice of the proceedings.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after the applicant failed to respond to Tribunal correspondence.
The applicant filed an application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code.
After verbally confirming an intention to withdraw the application, the applicant failed to file a formal Request to Withdraw.
The Tribunal subsequently warned the applicant that failure to respond would result in the application being considered abandoned.
As the applicant did not respond, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.
Respondents given 14 days to file a Response to human rights application or face default proceedings.
The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.
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 and deem the respondents to have accepted the allegations.
Respondent's requests for summary dismissal denied as competing factual accounts require evidence.
The respondent requested a summary hearing and an order during proceeding to dismiss the human rights application, arguing it was based on patently false claims and constituted an abuse of process.
The Tribunal denied both requests, finding that the parties had competing accounts of the facts, which required evidence to resolve.
The Tribunal directed the parties to indicate their willingness to participate in mediation.
Respondents given 14 days to file late Response to contravention of settlement application.
The applicant filed an Application for Contravention of Settlement under section 45.9(3) of the Human Rights Code.
The respondents failed to file a Response within the required 14-day period.
The Tribunal issued an Interim Decision directing the respondents to file their Response within 14 days, along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice to them.
Tribunal directs non-responding party to file response within 14 days or face default proceedings.
The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondents.
The additional respondent, 2233310 Ontario Inc., failed to file a response.
The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the additional respondent 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 respondent to have accepted the allegations.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to Tribunal directions.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment.
The respondents requested dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance had been dealt with in another proceeding.
After the applicant's counsel withdrew, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to file a Reply.
The applicant failed to respond within the specified time.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to Tribunal correspondence.
The applicant subsequently sent a Request to Withdraw Application to the respondent but failed to file it with the Tribunal.
After the applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's correspondence warning that the application could be dismissed as abandoned, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.
Union granted intervenor status in member's human rights application against school board.
The Elementary Teachers' Federation of Ontario requested intervenor status in a human rights application filed by one of its members against the school board.
The applicant opposed the request, arguing the union should support him rather than the employer.
The Tribunal granted the union intervenor status, finding it had an evident interest in the health and safety of its members and the collective agreement.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.
The applicant filed a human rights application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.
The Tribunal subsequently issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) on the basis that the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.
The applicant failed to respond to the NOID by the specified deadline.
The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intention to Defer pending the resolution of a related Landlord and Tenant Board proceeding, but neither party responded.
Following a subsequent Case Assessment Direction warning that the application could be dismissed if the applicant did not confirm an intent to proceed, the applicant failed to respond.
The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.
Human rights application partially dismissed under s. 45.1 where termination issues were resolved in prior ESA proceeding.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex and family status, claiming the respondent failed to accommodate her pregnancy-related illness and subsequently terminated her employment as a reprisal for taking pregnancy leave.
The respondent brought a preliminary request to dismiss the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance of the application had already been dealt with in a prior Employment Standards Act proceeding before the Ontario Labour Relations Board, where the applicant was successful.
The Tribunal found that the termination and reprisal allegations were appropriately dealt with in the OLRB proceeding and dismissed those parts of the application.
However, the Tribunal held that the allegation of failure to accommodate was not dealt with by the OLRB and could proceed, finding it was not out of time as it formed part of a series of incidents with the termination.
Human rights allegations relating to events prior to September 2011 dismissed as out of time.
The respondent school board requested an order dismissing aspects of the human rights application that were out of time.
The applicant alleged discriminatory treatment of his son, primarily relating to an event in November 2010, but also referenced events from several years prior.
The Tribunal found no sufficient temporal or thematic connection to constitute a 'series of incidents' under section 34(1)(b) of the Human Rights Code.
The allegations relating to events prior to September 2011 were dismissed as out of time.
The respondent filed a response requesting dismissal on the basis of exclusive federal jurisdiction.
The applicant failed to respond to the request to dismiss despite multiple extensions and a Case Assessment Direction warning that the application may be dismissed as abandoned.
Human rights applications dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to attend teleconference hearing.
The applicant filed three human rights applications alleging discrimination in employment based on age and association.
A hearing was scheduled to determine if the applications should be dismissed as an abuse of process or because another proceeding had dealt with the substance.
The applicant failed to attend the teleconference hearing, and the applications were dismissed as abandoned.
The respondent's request to declare the applicant a vexatious litigant was reserved.
After the hearing, the applicant emailed the Tribunal stating he could not connect to the teleconference.
The Tribunal directed the applicant to file a Request for Reconsideration to address his non-attendance.
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 sex.
The Tribunal directed a summary hearing to determine if the application had no reasonable prospect of success.
The applicant failed to attend the summary hearing and did not communicate with the Tribunal.
The application was dismissed as abandoned.
Human rights application alleging discrimination based on creed over a doctrinal dispute dismissed.
The applicant alleged discrimination in the provision of services based on creed, following a verbal altercation with a temple official over a doctrinal dispute regarding volunteerism.
The applicant believed he was banned from the temple as a result.
The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success.
The Tribunal noted there was no evidence of a ban or that the applicant's volunteer work was targeted, and held that a doctrinal dispute within a religious community does not amount to discrimination under the Code.
Reconsideration of interim decision denied; former counsel permitted to intervene to address misconduct allegations.
The applicant alleged a breach of settlement of a prior human rights application and subsequently sought to set aside the settlement agreement, alleging misconduct by her former counsel and the respondent.
In this interim decision, the Tribunal dismissed the applicant's request for reconsideration of a prior interim decision because it was not a final decision.
The Tribunal granted the former counsel's request to intervene to respond to the allegations of misconduct.
The Tribunal also denied the applicant's request to defer the application pending a newly commenced civil proceeding, noting the advanced stage of the Tribunal matter and potential procedural issues in the civil action.