Reconsideration granted in part to address a training remedy ordered without notice to the respondent.
The respondent City of Toronto requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision finding it liable for discrimination after an employee failed to adequately respond to a racial slur directed at the applicant by another member of the public.
The Tribunal dismissed the request regarding the finding of discrimination, concluding it did not conflict with established jurisprudence.
However, the Tribunal granted the request regarding the training remedy ordered, as the respondent had not been given notice that such a remedy was being contemplated, and directed the parties to provide written submissions on the issue.
Human rights application dismissed for delay as applicant failed to provide good faith explanation.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment more than one year after his dismissal.
The respondent requested that the application be dismissed for delay.
The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide a good faith explanation for the delay under section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code, noting that pursuing a grievance does not toll the limitation period and the applicant did not act with due diligence.
The application was dismissed.
Human rights application against airport security company dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as aeronautics is federally regulated.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in the provision of goods and services by the respondent, a security company.
The respondent requested the application be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, arguing its operations at the Greater Toronto Airport Authority fall under federal jurisdiction.
The Tribunal agreed, finding that the provision of security services at the airport is integral to a federal work or undertaking (aeronautics).
The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Reconsideration request dismissed as applicant's allegations of adjudicative misconduct were unsubstantiated disagreements with factual findings.
The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his application.
He alleged that the presiding adjudicator engaged in misconduct, including deception and fabrication of evidence, and that the hearing was unfair.
The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant's complaints amounted to disagreements with factual determinations and that he failed to provide evidence of procedural defects or establish any threshold criteria for reconsideration.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to Tribunal directions.
The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.
The respondent filed a Response and a Request for Summary Hearing.
The applicant requested and was granted an extension of time to respond, but failed to do so.
After a further direction from the Tribunal went unanswered, the Tribunal found that the applicant had abandoned the application and dismissed it.
Respondents deemed to have accepted allegations and waived participation rights after failing to file a Response.
The applicant filed an Application alleging a contravention of settlement by the respondents under section 45.9(3) of the Human Rights Code.
The respondents failed to file a Response despite being notified by the Tribunal of the consequences of not doing so.
The Tribunal issued an interim decision deeming the respondents to have accepted all allegations in the Application and waived all rights to notice or participation in the proceedings.
A teleconference hearing was scheduled to deal with any further materials and oral submissions from the applicant.
Respondent's request for further particulars of human rights application denied.
The respondent in a human rights application alleging employment discrimination filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking further particulars of the applicant's allegations.
The applicant did not respond to the request.
The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the application generally identified the who, what, when, and where of each alleged incident and was not lacking in particulars.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to attend mediation or respond.
The applicant filed an application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code.
The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation session and did not respond to subsequent communications from the Tribunal directing them to advise of their intentions.
The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.
Respondent 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 respondent failed to file a Response despite multiple extensions and warnings from the Tribunal.
The respondent claimed the matter had settled, but the applicant did not confirm the settlement.
The Tribunal ordered that the respondent is deemed to have accepted all allegations in the Application and waived all rights to notice or participation in the proceedings.
A case management conference call was scheduled to determine next steps.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to attend mediation or respond to correspondence.
The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.
The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation session and subsequently failed to respond to the Tribunal's correspondence directing her to advise of her intentions regarding the application.
Request to remove respondent's representative denied; board membership alone does not create conflict of interest.
The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking to remove the respondent's representative, a lawyer who was formerly the Chair of the respondent's Board and is currently a Board member, alleging a conflict of interest.
The Tribunal denied the request, finding that these facts alone do not create a conflict of interest and the applicant failed to articulate any other basis for the claim.
Human rights application dismissed for abandonment after applicant failed to comply with Tribunal directions.
The applicant alleged discrimination with respect to contracts based on disability, place of origin, and race.
The Tribunal issued multiple Case Assessment Directions requiring the applicant to provide particulars of her allegations and explain the relevance of certain evidence.
The applicant failed to comply with these directions and did not respond to the Tribunal's final direction to confirm her intention to proceed.
Consequently, the Tribunal found that the applicant had abandoned the application and dismissed it.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to file settlement form or respond.
The parties reached a settlement at mediation, and the respondent filed a Form 25 confirming the settlement.
The applicant failed to file a signed Form 25 or respond to multiple communications from the Tribunal directing them to do so or confirm their intention to proceed to a hearing.
Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.
Third request for adjournment of summary hearing denied for lack of exceptional circumstances.
The applicant requested a third adjournment of a scheduled summary hearing, citing a temporary inability to access an email account to retrieve previously filed materials.
The Tribunal denied the request, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify an adjournment, as the applicant had regained access to the materials and had ample time to prepare evidence regarding the issuance of a trespass notice.
Adjournment of summary hearing denied despite respondent's late filing of case law.
The applicant requested a three-week adjournment of a scheduled summary hearing, citing the respondent's late filing of two decisions it intended to rely upon.
The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, finding that while the respondent should have filed the decisions earlier, an adjournment was not necessary.
The Tribunal noted that if the applicant required more time to address the late-filed decisions, she could request to file written submissions.
Tribunal declines to dismiss human rights application at summary hearing stage.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on race and colour after allegedly being denied service by counter staff at a courthouse administered by the respondent City.
The Tribunal directed a summary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.
The adjudicator found that, taking the applicant's allegations as capable of proof, it could not be concluded that there was no reasonable prospect of success.
The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application and ordered the respondents to file a Response.
Adjournment request denied; late retention of counsel does not constitute extraordinary circumstances.
The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates primarily because his newly retained counsel was unavailable.
The Tribunal denied the request, noting that under its Practice Direction, adjournments requested outside the 14-day window are only granted in extraordinary circumstances.
The late retention of counsel and the proposed representative's unavailability for several months did not constitute extraordinary circumstances justifying a delay.
Request to strike Response denied as applicant suffered no prejudice from standard filing procedure.
The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code alleging discrimination and reprisal.
The respondent filed a Response asserting that many allegations were untimely.
The applicant brought a Request for Order During Proceeding to strike the Response, arguing it was not delivered to her as required by a previous interim decision.
The Tribunal denied the request, finding no prejudice to the applicant because the respondent followed the usual procedure for filing a Response.
The Tribunal directed the applicant to address the delay issue and ordered the parties to confirm their interest in mediation.
Interim remedy request denied as the alleged harm of license suspension was entirely speculative.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging the respondent failed to accommodate her disability-related needs regarding its quality assurance program.
She requested an interim remedy to prevent the respondent from terminating her right to practice naturopathy.
The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant failed to meet the significant onus under Rule 23.2.
The Tribunal noted that the alleged harm was entirely speculative at this stage and that an interim remedy was not necessary to ensure the Tribunal could award an effective remedy if a Code violation were ultimately found.
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 (NOID) because the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.
The applicant failed to provide written submissions in response to the NOID within the required time, despite being granted an extension.