Hearing adjourned to allow applicant to serve unlocatable personal respondent.
The respondents brought a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking to remove the personal respondents or adjourn the hearing pending location and service on one of the personal respondents, who had left the corporate respondent's employ and was no longer in contact with counsel.
The applicant objected, stating the personal respondents were critical to the application.
The Tribunal adjourned the hearing and ordered the applicant to serve the application on the unlocatable respondent within 60 days if he wished to pursue the application against him.
Request for production of Ontario Works file and extension of time granted.
The applicant filed a Request for Order seeking the production of her Ontario Works file held by the respondent and an extension of time to deliver and file her list of witnesses and documents.
The respondent did not respond to the request.
The Tribunal granted the request, noting that the allegations in the complaint dealt primarily with the handling of the applicant's claim to Ontario Works benefits, making it likely that her file contained arguably relevant documents.
Human rights applications dismissed for delay and because the substance was dealt with by the OLRB.
The applicant filed human rights applications against his union and employer alleging discrimination regarding his return to work following a medical leave.
The respondents requested early dismissal.
The Tribunal dismissed the application against the union as it was filed outside the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Code, and the delay was not incurred in good faith.
The Tribunal also dismissed both applications under section 45.1 of the Code, finding that the substance of the human rights allegations had been appropriately dealt with by the Ontario Labour Relations Board in a prior duty of fair representation proceeding.
Disability discrimination complaint allowed to proceed despite union's withdrawal of related grievances without applicant's consent.
The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex and disability.
The respondents raised preliminary issues seeking early dismissal, arguing the complaints were filed out of time and had been appropriately dealt with through the grievance process.
The Tribunal dismissed the sex discrimination complaint due to an unexplained four-year delay.
However, the Tribunal allowed the disability discrimination complaint to proceed, finding the allegations constituted a series of incidents within the time limit.
The Tribunal also held that the withdrawal of grievances by the applicant's union without her consent did not mean the matter had been appropriately dealt with under the Code.
Tribunal deferred scheduling request for 90 days to allow implementation of arbitration settlement.
The applicant requested that his human rights application be scheduled for a hearing, arguing that the arbitration to which it was deferred was not proceeding.
The respondents objected, noting that the parties had reached a settlement agreement at arbitration that resolved the application.
The Tribunal deferred consideration of the requests for 90 days to allow for the implementation of the settlement, noting that proceeding with the application in the face of a settlement could amount to an abuse of process.
Human rights applications dismissed as abandoned following the death of the applicant and failure to respond.
The applicants filed human rights complaints alleging discrimination in the provision of services.
Following the death of the applicant Mir Muhammed Shaikh, the applicants' representative advised she was unable to obtain instructions.
The respondents requested the applications be dismissed.
After the applicants' representative and the estate failed to respond to a Request for Order and a Case Assessment Direction, the Tribunal warned the applications would be dismissed as abandoned.
Receiving no response, the Tribunal dismissed both applications as abandoned.
Human rights application facing CCAA stay will be dismissed as abandoned unless applicant responds.
The applicant filed a human rights application.
The respondent submitted that the application was stayed pursuant to an order under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA).
The Tribunal previously directed the applicant to provide submissions or advise if he had sought leave to lift the stay.
The applicant failed to respond.
The Tribunal issued an interim decision stating that the application appears abandoned and will be dismissed unless the applicant provides written submissions within five days.
Tribunal dismisses historical reprisal allegations due to delay, prior dismissal, and abuse of process.
The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging reprisal by the respondent college for previous complaints, citing unsuccessful job applications over 20 years and his 1985 termination.
The respondent sought to dismiss significant elements of the application.
The Tribunal dismissed allegations relating to previously dismissed complaints under s. 53(8) of the Code, and dismissed allegations contradicting a prior arbitration award regarding his termination as an abuse of process.
The Tribunal also dismissed allegations older than one year prior to the complaint due to delay.
The remaining allegations regarding recent job applications will proceed to a hearing on whether they establish a prima facie case.
Tribunal issues interim order on document production and hearing directions in human rights complaint.
The applicant in a human rights complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, reprisal, and sexual solicitation brought a request for the production of documents and directions regarding the hearing process.
The Tribunal ordered the production of 2006 Board of Directors meeting minutes, finding them arguably relevant, but denied requests for budget documents and certain emails.
The Tribunal also upheld solicitor-client privilege over communications between the Board and its acting chair.
Additionally, the Tribunal provided directions on the use of medical information, the scheduling of witnesses, and permitted the applicant to make a personal audio recording of the proceedings.
Individual respondents removed from human rights application as allegations pertained solely to the corporate employer.
The corporate respondent brought a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to remove two individual respondents, Bruce Cappel and Andrea Margles, from the human rights application.
The applicant did not provide reply submissions.
Applying the factors from Persaud v. Toronto District School Board, the Tribunal found that the allegations related to the corporate respondent's duty to accommodate and there were no specific allegations against the individuals.
The Tribunal ordered the removal of the personal respondents.
Request to amend transitional human rights application to include post-complaint allegations denied.
The respondents requested that allegations in the applicant's statement of additional facts be struck because they post-dated the original human rights complaint filed with the Commission.
The Tribunal noted that under section 53(5) of the Human Rights Code and Rule 12, transitional applications must be based on the subject matter of the original complaint.
The Tribunal declined to exercise its discretion to allow the amendments, finding it was not necessary for the fair, just, and expeditious resolution of the application.
The post-dating allegations were struck.
Human rights application dismissed; light duty assignments were within medical restrictions and not discriminatory.
The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, race, colour, ethnic origin, and place of origin.
Following a workplace shoulder injury, the applicant was placed on light duties.
He alleged the employer failed to accommodate his restrictions by assigning him sweeping duties and later assigned him demeaning 'garbage' work due to his race and origin.
The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no evidence that the work assignments or medical staff's treatment were influenced by prohibited grounds.
The assigned work was within his medical restrictions and part of a legitimate recycling initiative.
Request for early dismissal and adjournment denied; applicant ordered to comply with disclosure obligations.
The respondents brought a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking early dismissal of the human rights application under section 45.1 of the Code, an adjournment of the scheduled hearing, and an order for production.
The Tribunal denied the request for early dismissal because the respondents failed to provide the decisions of the College of Physicians and Surgeons and the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board they relied upon.
The request for an adjournment was denied as the individual respondent did not establish an inability to make alternate arrangements for his scheduled shift.
The Tribunal ordered the applicant to comply with disclosure obligations.
Human rights applications to be dismissed as abandoned following applicant's death unless estate representative responds.
The applicants filed human rights complaints alleging discrimination in the provision of services by the respondent hospitals and individuals.
Following the death of the applicant Mir Muhammed Shaikh, who was also acting as the estate trustee for the other applicant, the applicants' representative advised she could no longer obtain instructions.
The respondents requested an order dismissing the applications.
After the applicants failed to respond to a Case Assessment Direction, the Tribunal found the applications appeared to be abandoned and ordered that they would be dismissed unless a proper representative of the estates provided written submissions within five days.
Request for Tribunal inquiry into alleged mail tampering and suspension of document production timelines denied.
The applicant requested that the Tribunal conduct an inquiry into the respondents' conduct, alleging that mail from the respondents was arriving unsealed or opened.
The applicant also requested a suspension of his obligation to deliver and file materials for an upcoming Case Resolution Conference.
The Tribunal dismissed both requests, finding that an inquiry under section 44 of the Human Rights Code was not required as the allegations did not relate to the merits of the application, and that the mail issues did not affect the applicant's ability to deliver his materials.
Tribunal granted consent order withdrawing application against individual respondents and amending style of cause.
The applicant filed an application under section 53(5) of the Human Rights Code.
At the hearing, the Tribunal granted the applicant leave, on consent, to withdraw the application against the individual respondents and ordered the style of cause amended accordingly.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to Tribunal directions.
The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.
The respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceeding to be removed and to add a corporate respondent.
The applicant failed to respond to the Request, failed to provide required disclosure, and failed to respond to a Case Assessment Direction asking if she intended to proceed.
The Tribunal found the application abandoned and dismissed it.
Human rights applications dismissed as there was no evidence that termination or union representation were tainted by racial discrimination.
The applicant, a Black man, alleged that his employment was terminated and his union failed to take his grievance to arbitration because of his race and colour.
The employer terminated the applicant after two eyewitnesses reported seeing him urinating in the parking lot.
The applicant denied the allegation, claiming another employee was responsible and that the employer and union's decisions were tainted by racial bias.
The Tribunal held a case resolution conference to hear evidence from the applicant and the eyewitnesses.
The Tribunal found the eyewitnesses credible and concluded there was no evidence to support the applicant's allegations of discriminatory treatment by either the employer or the union.
The applications were dismissed for failing to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.
Human rights applications alleging race and disability discrimination in a student practicum placement dismissed.
The applicant, a Black woman and student at York University, alleged discrimination on the basis of race, colour, and disability after her practicum placement at The Women's Centre of York Region was terminated prematurely.
The applicant claimed she was assigned demeaning tasks due to her race and that her placement was terminated because she requested accommodation for carpal tunnel syndrome.
The Tribunal found no evidence to support the allegations of discrimination or failure to accommodate, concluding that the placement was terminated for legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons related to the applicant's performance and failure to maintain appropriate boundaries.
The applications were dismissed.
Reconsideration granted where applicant missed hearing due to travel delays but made good faith attempt.
The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision dismissing her human rights application after she failed to attend the hearing.
The applicant explained that she missed the hearing due to travel delays caused by a full flight and ticketing errors beyond her control.
The respondent opposed the request, arguing the applicant could have contacted the Tribunal or the parties to advise them of her delay.
The Tribunal found that while the applicant made imprudent travel choices, she made a good faith attempt to attend and did arrive in Toronto, albeit after the hearing concluded.
The Tribunal granted the reconsideration request, finding the circumstances outweighed the public interest in finality.