Tribunal invites submissions on whether to defer human rights application pending resolution of related files.
The applicant filed an application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code alleging discrimination in the provision of services, claiming he was subjected to homophobic slurs while attending minor hockey games.
This application is one of eleven filed by the applicant raising similar facts.
The Tribunal issued an interim decision noting that previous similar applications had been deferred pending the resolution of preliminary issues, and gave the parties 10 days to make submissions on whether this application should also be deferred.
Request to add new individual respondents to transitional human rights applications denied.
The applicants brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings to add two individuals as respondents to their human rights applications and to remove two others.
The underlying complaints alleged discrimination and harassment on the basis of marital status and sexual orientation in accommodation.
The Tribunal denied the request to add the new respondents, noting they were not named in the original 2005 complaints and their addition was not necessary for the fair, just, and expeditious resolution of the applications.
Adjournment request denied as scheduling error does not constitute exceptional circumstances.
The respondent requested an adjournment of a scheduled Case Resolution Conference due to a scheduling error on its part.
The Tribunal denied the request, noting that its Information Bulletin requires exceptional circumstances for late adjournment requests, and a scheduling error does not meet this threshold.
Human rights application dismissed under s. 34(11) due to concurrent wrongful dismissal action on same facts.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging failure to accommodate and harassment based on disability.
The respondent requested dismissal under s. 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, arguing the applicant had already commenced a civil action for wrongful dismissal based on the same factual allegations.
The Tribunal found that the factual claims in the civil action were indistinguishable from the human rights application and that the remedies sought overlapped.
The application was dismissed as s. 34(11) requires applicants to choose a single forum to avoid duplicative litigation.
Human rights applications deferred pending resolution of preliminary issues in related transitional applications.
The applicant filed two human rights applications alleging discrimination in the provision of goods, services, and facilities.
These applications were among ten filed by the applicant raising similar facts and issues.
The Tribunal had previously deferred other related applications pending the resolution of preliminary issues.
The applicant opposed deferral, arguing he intended to seek judicial review of a prior interim decision.
The Tribunal found that a stay is not automatic upon commencing judicial review and concluded it was just, fair, and expeditious to defer these applications pending the resolution of the preliminary issues in the related transitional applications.
Human rights application dismissed on consent due to parallel civil proceeding.
The respondents requested the dismissal of the human rights application because the applicant had commenced a parallel civil action in the Superior Court of Justice claiming damages for malicious prosecution and Charter breaches arising from the same events.
The applicant consented to the application being struck.
The Tribunal dismissed the application on consent.
Human rights applications dismissed as barred by section 34(11) due to parallel civil proceeding.
The applicants, through their litigation guardian, filed human rights applications alleging discrimination on the basis of family status after the respondent school refused to enroll them.
The respondent requested dismissal of the applications under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the litigation guardian had already commenced a civil action against the respondent's principals based on the same factual dispute.
The Tribunal found that the civil proceeding dealt with the same allegations and subject matter, and that allowing the applications to proceed would result in duplicative litigation.
The applications were dismissed.
Human rights application dismissed after applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing.
The applicant filed an application under section 53(5) of the Human Rights Code.
A hearing was scheduled, but the applicant failed to attend.
After waiting 30 minutes in accordance with Tribunal practice, the adjudicator proceeded in the applicant's absence.
Finding that the applicant had received proper notice, the adjudicator dismissed the application due to the applicant's failure to attend.
Union granted intervenor status in human rights application to argue grievance settlement resolved the issues.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of ancestry, place of origin, and disability.
The Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1328, which represented the applicant's bargaining unit, filed a request to intervene, arguing the application should be dismissed because the issues were resolved by a grievance settlement.
The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene, finding the application raised issues of general interest to the union and directly implicated it as the party with carriage of the grievance.
The union was permitted to make submissions on the preliminary issue of whether the application should be dismissed.
Request for document production granted for original birthday card but denied for passport.
The respondents brought a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking the production of the original of a birthday card and the applicant's passport at the hearing.
The Tribunal granted the request for the birthday card, noting that if part of a document is relied upon, the entire original should be produced.
The request for the passport was denied as it was not relevant to the issues in dispute in the Application.
Union granted intervenor status; parties directed to provide submissions on deferring application pending concurrent grievances.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment.
The Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU), which represents the applicant's bargaining unit and is actively representing her in numerous overlapping grievances, filed a request to intervene.
The Tribunal granted OPSEU's request to intervene, noting that the application raises issues of general interest to the union.
Additionally, in light of the respondents' request to dismiss or defer the application and OPSEU's submission that the matter should be deferred pending the outcome of the ongoing grievances, the Tribunal cancelled a scheduled mediation and directed the parties to provide written submissions on the dismissal/deferral issues.
Tribunal deferred request to restrict applicant's communications and directed submissions on whether prior grievances resolved the matter.
The respondents requested an interim order restricting the applicant from circulating a witness statement obtained during a prior grievance arbitration and from sending allegedly harassing emails to public servants.
The Tribunal found it lacked clear authority to enforce an implied undertaking or a Grievance Settlement Board order from another proceeding, as the nexus to the current human rights application was unclear.
Noting that the underlying grievances had concluded, the Tribunal directed the parties to provide submissions on whether the application should be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Code or for abuse of process.
Union granted intervener status; request to dismiss or defer application scheduled for separate hearing.
The respondents requested an early dismissal or deferral of the human rights application, arguing that the applicant had filed numerous grievances touching on the same issues.
The Tribunal found that it lacked sufficient information regarding the status of the grievances and scheduled a half-day hearing to determine the request.
The applicant's union requested to intervene in the proceedings.
The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene, noting that the remedies sought by the applicant raised issues of general interest to the bargaining unit, with the extent of participation to be determined by the presiding adjudicator at future proceedings.
Human rights application dismissed due to applicant's failure to attend hearing and lack of nexus.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, and ethnic origin.
The respondents requested the application be dismissed as it lacked factual allegations connecting the performance-related criticisms to a prohibited ground.
The applicant failed to attend the scheduled Case Resolution Conference.
The Tribunal dismissed the application due to the applicant's failure to attend and the lack of a nexus between the alleged conduct and any prohibited ground under the Human Rights Code.
Litigation privilege claim over workplace investigation documents dismissed for failing the dominant purpose test.
The applicant sought production of documents related to a workplace investigation and surveillance conducted around the time of his termination.
The respondents claimed litigation privilege over the documents, arguing that litigation was reasonably contemplated when the decision to terminate was made.
The Tribunal applied the dominant purpose test and found no evidence that the investigator was retained or the notes were created for the dominant purpose of anticipated litigation or obtaining legal advice.
The Tribunal ordered the production of the documents.
Request for reconsideration of interim decision regarding scope of complaint and removal of respondents dismissed.
The applicant requested reconsideration of an interim decision that defined the scope of the complaint and removed certain individual respondents.
The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the interim decision was not a final decision and that the applicant's disagreement with the Tribunal's conclusions was not a proper basis for reconsideration.
Employer ordered to pay $14,085 after terminating employee due to perceived safety concerns related to physical disabilities.
The applicant, who has congenital physical disabilities, alleged that his employment was terminated because of his disability or perceived disability, and that the respondents engaged in reprisal by disclosing mediation details.
The Tribunal found that the individual respondent terminated the applicant due to concerns about his ability to safely perform the work and potential WSIB claims, making disability a factor in the dismissal.
The reprisal allegation was dismissed as the disclosure of mediation information does not constitute a reprisal under the Code.
The Tribunal awarded the applicant $10,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, $4,000 for lost wages, and $85 for out-of-pocket expenses.
Medical report admitted as arguably relevant to employer's investigation of disability prior to termination.
The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and failure to accommodate following his termination.
In this interim decision, the Tribunal considered the admissibility of a medical report dated March 15, 2007.
The Tribunal found the report arguably relevant to the employer's investigation of the applicant's illness and the bona fides of the termination decision, admitting it subject to limitations regarding the scope of the original complaint.
Request to reconsider interim decision deferring applications dismissed as the decision was not final.
The applicant filed a Request for Order during Proceedings seeking to set aside an earlier interim decision that deferred his applications pending the determination of preliminary issues in transitional applications.
The Tribunal treated the request as a request for reconsideration under section 45.7 of the Human Rights Code.
The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that its rules only permit reconsideration of final decisions, and the interim decision at issue was not final.
Application against spectator for homophobic slurs at hockey game dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
The applicant filed human rights applications alleging he was subjected to homophobic slurs while attending minor hockey games.
The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the applications against the individual respondents (a player and a spectator) on the basis that they did not provide a service to the applicant.
The Tribunal dismissed the application against the spectator, finding it plain and obvious that a spectator does not provide a service under the Code.
The issue regarding the player was deferred pending the resolution of broader preliminary issues raised by the institutional respondents.