Early dismissal request denied as prior WSIB decision was not a final determination.
The respondent employer brought a request for an order during the proceeding to dismiss the human rights application early, arguing that the key factual allegations had been finally determined by the WSIB.
The respondent relied on the doctrines of issue estoppel and section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.
The Tribunal found that the WSIB claims adjudicator's decision was not a final decision, as an Appeals Resolution Officer had returned the file for further information to make an informed decision.
Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the request for early dismissal.
Tribunal orders applicant to produce business records relevant to mitigation of damages.
The respondents in a human rights application filed a Request for Order during Proceeding seeking production of the applicant's business and financial records to assess his efforts to mitigate damages following the termination of his employment.
The applicant resisted, arguing that his business and rental income were separate from his claim for lost employment income and that the businesses were not parties to the proceeding.
The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the documents were arguably relevant to the calculation of damages and mitigation, and ordered the applicant to produce the requested records within 30 days.
Reconsideration request dismissed as the applicant failed to establish proper grounds and merely re-argued the merits.
The applicant filed a request for reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application.
The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant failed to address the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 25.5.
Instead, the applicant attempted to re-argue the merits of the case and submitted new material relating to events outside the relevant time period, neither of which constitute proper grounds for reconsideration.
Requests to add WSIB as party and adjourn hearing denied; summonses for premature witnesses stayed.
The applicant in a human rights complaint alleging disability discrimination brought a request to add the WSIB as a party and to adjourn the upcoming hearing.
A proposed witness, Dr. Thomson, also requested to quash a summons served by the applicant.
The Tribunal denied the request to add the WSIB, finding no basis for its inclusion.
The Tribunal stayed the summonses for Dr. Thomson and other witnesses, noting that the hearing was bifurcated and their evidence was not arguably relevant to the first phase.
The request for an adjournment was denied, as the applicant could proceed with her own evidence and the outstanding procedural issues could be addressed at the hearing.
Pregnancy discrimination application dismissed; lay-off and recall to distant location were legitimate business decisions.
The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of sex (pregnancy), claiming her employer temporarily laid her off and later recalled her to a distant location to force her to quit.
The Tribunal found the lay-off was due to a severe business downturn and that the applicant's pregnancy actually saved her from outright termination.
The Tribunal also found the recall to the Brampton office was a legitimate business decision, not a sham, and that the employer did not fail in its obligations to inform her of alternative opportunities during her leave, as no suitable positions were available.
The application was dismissed.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to attend hearing or communicate.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging failure to accommodate her disability.
Following multiple delays and an adjournment request by the applicant, the Tribunal scheduled a teleconference hearing for preliminary issues.
The applicant failed to attend the hearing and subsequently failed to respond to Tribunal directions or pick up delivered materials.
After issuing a final direction warning that the application would be dismissed if she did not communicate her intention to proceed, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.
Request to consolidate human rights applications denied as one application had already been heard.
The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking to consolidate her transition Application under s. 53(5) of the Human Rights Code with her Application under s. 34 of the Code.
The Tribunal rejected the request because the s. 34 Application had already been heard, a decision was pending, and it related to another respondent and different events.
Adjournment granted due to extraordinary circumstances to allow applicant to attend a fellow officer's funeral.
The applicant, a police officer, requested an adjournment of the hearing to attend the funeral of a slain fellow officer.
The respondent's counsel was out of the country and unable to provide instructions, but acknowledged the tragic circumstances.
The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding the request was based on extraordinary circumstances as contemplated by the Practice Direction.
Human rights application withdrawn with consent of the respondent and leave of the Tribunal.
The applicant sought to withdraw her human rights application filed under section 53(5) of the Human Rights Code.
The respondent consented to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to communicate for over two years.
The applicant filed an application under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code, which was deferred at his request.
After over two years of no communication from the applicant, the Tribunal directed him to advise whether he wished to reactivate the application.
The applicant failed to respond within the 30-day period.
The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.
Request for reconsideration dismissed as applicant provided no new determinative evidence or other justifying factors.
The applicant sought reconsideration of a previous decision (2010 HRTO 2364) that dismissed his application alleging discrimination in employment.
The applicant argued that a potential witness was not required to give evidence and that he was unable to deliver documents due to a police ban.
The Tribunal found that the applicant provided no new facts or evidence that could be determinative, nor any other factors outweighing the public interest in finality.
The request for reconsideration was dismissed.
Request for reconsideration of interim decision adjourning hearing denied as not contemplated by Tribunal rules.
The respondent requested reconsideration of an interim decision that adjourned the hearing due to unresolved production issues.
The Tribunal denied the request, noting that its Rules of Procedure for Transitional Applications do not contemplate the reconsideration of an interim decision, and that it would be impractical to proceed with the hearing on the originally scheduled date.
The Tribunal also addressed the production issues, noting it would not order production of documents that have already been produced or do not exist, and directed the parties to provide available dates to reschedule the hearing.
Request to defer human rights hearing pending College of Physicians and Surgeons complaint denied.
The respondent doctor requested a deferral of the human rights hearing pending the outcome of a reactivated complaint filed by the applicant with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.
The Tribunal denied the deferral request, noting that the Tribunal proceeding was at a very advanced stage with a scheduled hearing date and completed pre-hearing obligations, whereas the College proceeding was at a relatively early stage and could be subject to further appeals, causing undue delay.
Adjournment granted to resolve outstanding production issues prior to the hearing.
The applicant requested an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for January 6, 2011, citing outstanding production issues that were held in abeyance pending a decision on the scope of the application.
The respondent objected to the adjournment.
The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that the potential prejudice to the applicant in proceeding without resolving the production issues outweighed any prejudice to the respondent from a short delay.
Reconsideration granted and new hearing ordered due to denial of natural justice from refused adjournment.
The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights applications for delay.
He argued he was denied natural justice when the Tribunal proceeded with the initial hearing despite his request for an adjournment due to his representative's sudden illness.
The Tribunal found that the respondents should have been aware the applicant was represented, and the refusal to grant the adjournment prevented the representative from attending.
Concluding there was a denial of natural justice that outweighed the public interest in finality, the Tribunal granted the reconsideration, set aside the previous decision, and ordered a new hearing on the preliminary issues.
Historical discrimination allegations dismissed as untimely under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.
The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to dismiss the applicant's human rights application on the basis of delay.
The Tribunal considered whether the applicant's allegations of age and disability discrimination constituted a series of incidents under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.
The Tribunal found that several historical allegations regarding workplace incidents and denied promotions were untimely and could not be entertained as background information.
Those allegations were dismissed.
The applicant was directed to provide further particulars regarding one remaining allegation, while the allegations concerning a failure to accommodate and a discriminatory denial of a job promotion remained part of the application.
Tribunal removes individual respondents but declines to dismiss remaining workplace harassment allegations early.
The respondents brought Requests for Order During Proceedings seeking early dismissal of the human rights application and the removal of individual respondents.
The Tribunal declined to dismiss the remaining allegations of workplace harassment and sex discrimination, finding it was not plain and obvious that they had been appropriately dealt with in prior grievance proceedings.
However, the Tribunal granted the request to remove the individual respondents, as they were acting within the scope of their employment and the corporate respondent accepted liability for any potential Code infringements.
Human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment dismissed for lack of credible evidence.
The applicant, a pharmacist, alleged discrimination on the basis of ancestry, ethnic origin, place of origin, and disability, as well as reprisal by his employer.
He claimed he was denied holiday pay, deprived of workplace resources, subjected to unwarranted performance management, and terminated because he is from Pakistan and due to workplace stress.
The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant's evidence lacked credibility and there was no evidence to support any of the allegations.
The Tribunal accepted the employer's evidence that the performance issues were legitimate and documented, and that the termination was not discriminatory.
Human rights application alleging discriminatory termination dismissed for complete lack of supporting evidence.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, creed, place of origin, and sexual orientation.
He claimed his termination was the result of a fabricated sexual harassment complaint orchestrated by the respondents due to jealousy.
The Tribunal found no evidence to support the applicant's theory that his termination or the harassment complaint was influenced by discriminatory factors.
The evidence showed the applicant was terminated for breaching a workplace agreement regarding his interactions with a female coworker.
The allegations of inappropriate comments were also dismissed for lack of credible evidence linking them to the named respondents.
Pre-2002 human rights allegations struck for delay; post-2002 allegations permitted to proceed as potential series of incidents.
The respondent employer brought a Request for Order During Proceeding to strike portions of the applicant's human rights complaint on the basis that they were out of time and improperly expanded the scope of the original complaint.
The Tribunal struck the pre-2002 allegations and certain unparticularized general allegations, finding it would be unfair to require the respondent to answer them.
However, the Tribunal permitted the post-2002 allegations to proceed, finding they were sufficiently connected to potentially constitute a 'series of incidents' under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.