Reconsideration request dismissed as applicant failed to establish grounds under Rule 25.5.
The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous decision that dismissed his human rights applications on the basis that he had signed a full and final release, making the applications an abuse of process.
The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to address any of the required grounds for reconsideration under Rule 25.5, instead attempting to reargue the merits of his case and making unsubstantiated allegations of bias.
The request for reconsideration was dismissed.
Request for reconsideration of interim decision dismissed as the decision was not final.
The applicant requested a reconsideration of an interim decision that narrowed the scope of the issues to be addressed at the hearing.
The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the interim decision was not a final decision that disposed of any central issues between the parties, and therefore was not subject to reconsideration under the Tribunal's Rules.
Reconsideration request dismissed as applicant attempted to re-argue merits rather than addressing Rule 25.5 criteria.
The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous decision (2010 HRTO 756) that dismissed his human rights application.
The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to address any of the required criteria for reconsideration under Rule 25.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.
Instead, the applicant attempted to re-argue the preliminary issue and the merits of his application.
The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, noting that disagreement with the original conclusions is not a proper basis for reconsideration.
Human rights application withdrawn with leave of the Tribunal at the applicant's request.
The applicant filed correspondence advising that she wished to withdraw her human rights application.
The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn pursuant to section 53(5) of the Human Rights Code.
Reconsideration request dismissed as the underlying interim decision on production was not a final decision.
The applicant requested reconsideration of an interim decision dealing with production requests.
The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the interim decision was not a final decision that disposed of the substance or a central element of the dispute.
As the decision did not deprive the applicant of any prospect of a remedy and did not dispose of the entirety of the complaint, it could not be the subject of a reconsideration request under Rule 25.1.
Document production ordered for hire/status reports during applicant's parental leave in pregnancy discrimination claim.
The applicant filed a Request for Order during Proceeding seeking the production of the respondent employer's hire/status report for the period corresponding to her parental leave.
The applicant alleged that her lay-off and subsequent unsuitable job offer were related to her pregnancy, and that she was not made aware of suitable alternative employment during her leave.
The Tribunal found the requested documents arguably relevant to the issues raised in the Application and ordered the organizational respondent to produce the report.
Human rights application alleging racial discrimination in a transit fare dispute dismissed.
The applicant alleged racial discrimination in the provision of a service after a TTC bus driver challenged his transfer and required him to pay another fare.
The Tribunal found that the transfer was out of time and that there was no evidence the applicant was singled out for greater scrutiny because of his race, colour, or ethnic origin.
The application was dismissed.
Human rights application withdrawn against personal respondents on consent.
The applicant filed a transitional application under section 53(5) of the Human Rights Code.
On consent of all parties, the Tribunal ordered the application withdrawn as against the personal respondents and amended the style of cause accordingly.
The parties were directed to follow the established timetable for disclosure.
Human rights application deferred on consent pending parallel civil proceeding.
The applicant filed an application under section 53(5) of the Human Rights Code.
On consent of the parties, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of a civil proceeding involving the same parties.
Applicant given 10 days to respond to request to dismiss application for abandonment.
The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking to dismiss the human rights application as abandoned because the applicant failed to provide available dates for a hearing despite multiple requests.
The Tribunal directed the applicant to indicate within 10 days whether she wishes to make oral submissions regarding the request to dismiss, failing which the application may be dismissed as abandoned.
Human rights application withdrawn with leave of the Tribunal.
The applicant sought to withdraw his human rights application filed under section 53(5) of the Human Rights Code.
The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario granted leave and the application was withdrawn.
Human rights application alleging age and place of origin discrimination in termination dismissed for lack of evidence.
The applicant, a probationary receptionist, alleged that her employment was terminated because of her age and place of origin (Scottish accent).
The respondent employer maintained that she was terminated due to performance issues, including using coarse language, impatience with customers, and miscommunicating messages.
The Tribunal found the employer's witnesses credible and noted that the workplace was multi-ethnic and the applicant's predecessor and successor were of similar age.
The Tribunal concluded there was no evidence that the termination was tainted by discrimination and dismissed the application.
Request for reconsideration denied as disagreement with findings of fact does not satisfy Rule 25.5.
The applicant requested a reconsideration of the Tribunal's Case Resolution Conference Decision which dismissed his applications against his employer and union.
The applicant argued that some findings of fact were inconsistent with the conclusion that the union's decision not to proceed with his grievance was not discriminatory.
The Tribunal found that the applicant's request did not satisfy the requirements of Rule 25.5 of the Rules for Transitional Applications, as disagreement with findings of fact is not a basis for reconsideration.
The request for reconsideration was denied.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned due to applicant's failure to perfect or respond.
The applicant filed an incomplete application under section 53(5) of the Human Rights Code.
The Tribunal sent multiple letters directing the applicant to perfect the application and warning that failure to do so could result in dismissal.
The applicant failed to respond to any of the Tribunal's correspondence.
The application was dismissed as abandoned.
Reconsideration request denied as proposed new evidence could have been presented at the original hearing.
The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application, arguing that new evidence from a former colleague was potentially determinative.
The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the evidence was not potentially determinative and that the witness could and should have been called at the original hearing.
Reopening the hearing would undermine the Tribunal's process and the finality of its decisions.
Tribunal awards $29,896 in lost wages and non-pecuniary damages for discriminatory termination.
The applicant's employment was terminated in violation of the Human Rights Code.
In this remedy decision, the Tribunal awarded compensation for lost wages, partial business losses incurred during mitigation, and non-pecuniary damages.
The Tribunal found the applicant reasonably mitigated her losses by participating in a Self Employment Benefit Grant program and starting businesses.
The respondents were ordered jointly and severally liable to pay $15,838 for lost wages, $4,058 for business losses, and $10,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.
Reconsideration of interim decision dismissing claims based on judicial immunity denied; extension of time granted.
The applicants sought reconsideration of an interim decision that dismissed their human rights applications against two individual respondents on the basis of judicial immunity.
The applicants argued that the Tribunal had assumed jurisdiction over other government bodies and should do so in this case.
The Tribunal found this argument was based on a misapprehension, as the dismissal was based on judicial immunity, not whether the respondents were state actors.
However, the Tribunal granted the applicants' request for an extension of time to file submissions regarding any remaining allegations against the remaining individual respondents.
Preliminary objections dismissed; WSIB proceedings did not determine accommodation issue to bar claim.
The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging the respondent employer failed to accommodate his disability and return him to his pre-injury position following a workplace injury.
The respondent raised preliminary objections, arguing the application was filed out of time and that the applicant's attempt to re-litigate his ability to perform his pre-injury duties was an abuse of process given prior WSIB proceedings.
The Tribunal dismissed the preliminary objections, finding the complaint was filed within one year of the employer's definitive decision that it could not accommodate him.
The Tribunal also held there was no abuse of process because the WSIB had not actually determined whether the applicant could be accommodated without undue hardship.
Human rights applications dismissed as abuse of process due to valid prior Minutes of Settlement.
The applicant filed human rights complaints against his former employer and union alleging discrimination based on disability regarding his return from medical leave and subsequent lay-off.
The respondents sought to dismiss the applications as an abuse of process, arguing the applicant had previously signed Minutes of Settlement releasing them from all claims.
The applicant contended he lacked the mental capacity to appreciate the legal consequences of the settlement when he signed it.
The Tribunal found insufficient medical evidence to support the applicant's claim of incapacity and concluded he freely agreed to the settlement.
The applications were dismissed as an abuse of process.
The applicant sought to withdraw her human rights application filed under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code.
The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.