Tribunal declines to dismiss application at preliminary stage; disability and reprisal allegations sufficient to proceed.
The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the application, questioning its jurisdiction as the initial narrative failed to identify specific acts of discrimination.
The self-represented applicant provided written submissions clarifying her allegations of failure to accommodate a disability and reprisal.
The Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the application fell outside its jurisdiction and directed that the application be delivered to the respondents.
Request for reconsideration denied as applicant failed to meet threshold criteria and attempted to re-argue decided issues.
The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application for having no reasonable prospect of success and being out of time.
The applicant argued that the delay in filing was due to waiting for the conclusion of related criminal proceedings and needing time to pay a lawyer.
The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant was attempting to re-argue issues already decided and that the new facts presented could have been raised at the initial summary hearing.
Request for reconsideration denied as applicant failed to meet threshold criteria.
The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application against a vocational association.
The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish any of the threshold criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26, noting that the request essentially repeated arguments already made and dealt with in the original decision.
The request for reconsideration was denied.
Request to reactivate human rights application denied as parallel grievance arbitration remains ongoing.
The applicant filed a Request to Reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the completion of a grievance arbitration raising identical facts and issues.
The applicant alleged the arbitration proceeding was unfair and a reprisal.
The respondent opposed the request, noting the grievance was adjourned pending an independent medical examination.
The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no basis to reactivate the application while the grievance arbitration remained ongoing.
Tribunal dismisses applicant's interim requests to reinstate allegations, add a respondent, and state a contempt case.
The applicant filed a Request for Order during Proceedings seeking to reinstate a previously dismissed reprisal allegation, add a new individual respondent, amend the application to include a section 9 Code violation, and state a case of contempt for late document disclosure.
The Tribunal dismissed all requests.
The Tribunal found the prior decision dismissing the allegation was not final and thus not subject to reconsideration.
The request to add a respondent lacked notice and was too late in the proceedings.
The section 9 amendment lacked justification, and there was no evidence that documents were deliberately withheld to warrant a contempt finding.
Tribunal declined to defer human rights application as related Law Society complaints had concluded.
The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction to determine whether the application should be deferred pending the applicant's complaints to the Law Society of Upper Canada regarding the respondent's employees.
Both parties submitted that deferral was inappropriate as the Law Society investigations had concluded without any findings.
The Tribunal agreed, declined to defer the application, and directed the matter to proceed to a one-day oral hearing, waiving normal pre-hearing production requirements.
Reprisal allegation dismissed summarily; failure to accommodate surgery allegation proceeds to full hearing.
The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal regarding his application for funding under the Second Career program.
The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.
The Tribunal found that the reprisal allegation had no reasonable prospect of success as there was no evidence of retaliatory intent in the respondent's requests for information.
However, the Tribunal allowed the allegation regarding the failure to accommodate the applicant's need for surgery to proceed to a full hearing, as credibility issues could not be resolved summarily.
Union granted intervenor status; requests to add and remove personal respondents denied.
In an interim decision regarding a human rights application alleging sex discrimination and reprisal, the Tribunal addressed several preliminary requests.
The union's unopposed request to intervene was granted.
The applicant's request to add two individual respondents was denied, as the corporate respondent accepted liability and no compelling reason existed to add them.
The respondents' request to remove the individual respondent Kevin Cochrane was also denied, as he was a central figure in the allegations and a remedial order against him was possible.
The Tribunal also modified the parties' disclosure obligations.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond following respondent's bankruptcy.
The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.
Prior to mediation, the respondent filed for bankruptcy, triggering a stay of proceedings.
The Tribunal directed the applicant to advise within one year whether she had lifted the stay or taken steps to proceed.
The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's direction and subsequent inquiries.
Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.
Tribunal directs corporate respondent to file Response within 14 days and orders service on individual respondents.
The applicant filed a human rights application against the Superior Court of Justice and two individual court staff members.
The corporate respondent failed to file a Response by the deadline.
The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the corporate respondent to file a Response within 14 days or face potential consequences under Rule 5.5.
Additionally, due to an administrative error, the individual respondents had not been served; the Tribunal directed that they be served and given 35 days to respond.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to comply with document production directions.
The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment.
After requesting and receiving an adjournment due to the passing of her spouse, the applicant failed to comply with multiple Tribunal directions requiring the production of documents.
The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had abandoned the application and dismissed it.
Tribunal grants requests to anonymize minor applicants' names and consolidate identical human rights applications.
The applicants, two minors, filed human rights applications alleging they were denied admission to a summer camp because of a disability or perceived disability.
They requested that their names and their next friends' names be anonymized in the Tribunal's decisions to protect their privacy and avoid stigma.
The respondents did not oppose the request.
The Tribunal granted the anonymization request, finding that the protection of the children's highly personal information outweighed the principle of open justice.
The Tribunal also granted requests to consolidate the two identical applications.
Two human rights applications involving the same parties and ongoing factual situation consolidated on consent.
The applicant filed two human rights applications against the same respondents alleging discrimination and reprisal.
The respondents supported consolidation of the files, and the applicant consented.
Applying the factors from Lattey v. Canadian Pacific Railway, the Tribunal found that consolidating the applications was the most fair, just, and expeditious manner of adjudicating the matters.
The applications were ordered consolidated.
Tribunal dismisses bias claim based on former counsel's membership on Practice Advisory Committee.
The applicant filed an application alleging a breach of settlement by the respondent and subsequently requested to withdraw the application while seeking to set aside the Minutes of Settlement.
The applicant alleged a reasonable apprehension of bias against the adjudicator and the entire Tribunal because her former counsel is a member of the Tribunal's Practice Advisory Committee.
The Tribunal dismissed the bias claim, finding that membership on the Practice Advisory Committee does not create a reasonable apprehension of bias.
The Tribunal also found it had no jurisdiction to appoint a disinterested person under the Public Officers Act and issued directions for the remaining issues.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to Tribunal communications.
The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment based on colour, ethnic origin, and race.
The applicant later sent correspondence indicating a wish to withdraw the application but failed to copy the respondent as directed.
After a subsequent inquiry from the Tribunal was returned to sender, the Tribunal concluded the applicant had abandoned the application and dismissed it.
Request for reconsideration dismissed as alleged new facts were reiterations of previously considered allegations.
The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous decision dismissing her human rights application for having no reasonable prospect of success.
She argued there were new facts or evidence regarding her termination and severance entitlements.
The Tribunal found that the alleged new facts were merely reiterations of allegations already considered in the summary hearing.
The request for reconsideration was dismissed.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to Tribunal directions.
The applicant filed a human rights application which was stayed pending the respondent's bankruptcy proceedings.
After the bankruptcy proposal was accepted, the Tribunal directed the applicant to advise whether he intended to seek leave of the court to lift the stay.
The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's correspondence.
The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to Notice of Intent to Dismiss.
The applicant filed an application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code.
The Tribunal 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.
As a result, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.
Request for reconsideration dismissed as applicant failed to address the required grounds for reconsideration.
The applicant filed a request for reconsideration of a decision that dismissed his human rights application on the basis of judicial immunity.
The original application alleged that an official of the Ontario Labour Relations Board provided bad faith advice causing him to withdraw his application.
The Tribunal found that the applicant's request for reconsideration merely repeated portions of his original application and expressed disagreement with the decision, without addressing the grounds for reconsideration under the Tribunal's rules.
Union granted intervenor status in human rights application due to potential impact on bargaining unit.
The applicant's bargaining agent, the Canadian Union of Public Employees and its Local 2713, filed a Request to Intervene in an application alleging employment discrimination based on sexual orientation.
The union argued it had an interest in the outcome, as potential remedies could impact bargaining unit members' seniority rights.
The Tribunal granted the union intervenor status, noting that the extent of its participation would be determined by the presiding Member at the hearing.