Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to Notice of Intent to Dismiss.
The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.
The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.
The applicant failed to respond to the NOID despite it being sent by regular mail and courier.
As a result, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.
Individual respondents removed from human rights application as corporate respondent is vicariously liable for their actions.
The respondent school board brought a request to remove two individual respondents from a human rights application alleging failure to accommodate disability-related needs.
The applicant opposed and sought to add further individual respondents.
The Tribunal granted the respondent's request and denied the applicant's request, finding that the individuals were acting in the course of their employment, the corporate respondent was liable for their actions, and there was no compelling juridical reason to include them as personal respondents.
The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.
The applicant failed to respond to the Notice or subsequent communications.
The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to update contact information.
The applicant filed a human rights application but failed to provide updated contact information after being released from custody.
The Tribunal directed the respondent to deliver materials to the applicant's last known address and directed the applicant to provide updated contact information and respond to the respondent's Request for Summary Hearing.
The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's directions or communicate with the Tribunal.
Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned pursuant to Rule 5.4.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to provide valid contact information.
The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in contracts on the basis of race.
Notices and correspondence from the Tribunal were returned marked 'Moved/unknown' and 'Return to Sender'.
The applicant failed to provide a current mailing address by the Tribunal's deadline.
Pursuant to Rule 5.4 of the Tribunal's Rules, the application was dismissed as abandoned.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned due to applicant's failure to comply with disclosure directions.
The applicant failed to comply with Rules 16 and 17 of the HRTO's Rules of Procedure regarding pre-hearing disclosure of documents and witnesses.
Despite a Case Assessment Direction warning that the application could be dismissed as abandoned if the applicant did not comply by a specified deadline, the applicant failed to do so and did not communicate with the Tribunal.
Consequently, the Tribunal found the application abandoned and dismissed it.
Reconsideration request dismissed as applicant failed to address his refusal to confirm hearing dates.
The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application because he repeatedly declined to confirm his availability for hearing dates.
The applicant argued there were new facts, a lack of notice, and conflicts with established jurisprudence, while also alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias.
The Tribunal found that the applicant's submissions were confusing, failed to address the actual reason for the dismissal, and merely recited legal principles without connecting them to the facts of the case.
The request for reconsideration was dismissed.
Tribunal adds new corporate respondent to human rights application and holds proceeding in abeyance.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.
After the original respondent failed to file a response and was noted in default, the applicant requested an order to add Signarama Canada Inc. as a respondent.
The Tribunal granted the request, amended the title of proceedings, and held the application in abeyance for up to 30 days to allow the applicant to confirm the new respondent's contact information before scheduling a case management conference call.
Reconsideration request denied; disagreement with Tribunal's conclusions is not a proper basis for reconsideration.
The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application for having no reasonable prospect of success.
The applicant argued that she was unrepresented, felt rushed, and did not have an opportunity to question the respondent's witnesses.
The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to identify any new facts or evidence that could not have been reasonably obtained earlier, and that her disagreement with the Tribunal's conclusions was not a proper basis for reconsideration.
The request for reconsideration was denied.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to attend mediation or respond to Tribunal.
The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation session and subsequently failed to respond to a Tribunal direction inquiring about his intentions with respect to the application.
Human rights application deferred pending conclusion of concurrent grievance arbitration proceeding.
The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the conclusion of an ongoing grievance arbitration proceeding.
The respondents supported deferral, while the applicant opposed it.
The Tribunal found that the issues raised in the grievance arbitration were essentially identical to those in the application.
To avoid different conclusions about the facts in concurrent proceedings, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process.
Human rights application dismissed mid-hearing due to applicant's profoundly unreliable evidence contradicted by video surveillance.
The applicant alleged that he was denied entry to a movie theatre, subjected to racist remarks by a theatre employee, and subsequently mistreated by a police officer based on his race and place of origin.
At the hearing, the adjudicator found the applicant's evidence to be profoundly unreliable, internally inconsistent, and entirely contradicted by video surveillance footage.
The video showed the applicant sneaking into the theatre and acting aggressively, rather than presenting a valid ticket as claimed.
Finding no credible evidence to support the allegations of discrimination, the Tribunal dismissed the application at the hearing without requiring the respondents to call their full case.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to attend mediation or respond to directions.
The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation session and subsequently failed to respond to multiple written directions from the Tribunal inquiring about his intentions to proceed.
Reconsideration granted where applicant did not receive correspondence directing appointment of estate trustee.
The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision dismissing the application after the claimant passed away and the applicant failed to respond to a direction to provide a certificate of appointment of estate trustee.
The Tribunal granted the reconsideration request, accepting the applicant's assertion that she did not receive the correspondence.
The application was deferred for four months to allow the applicant to take steps to have an estate trustee appointed.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned due to applicant's repeated failure to comply with disclosure directions.
The applicant filed a human rights application but repeatedly failed to comply with the Tribunal's directions regarding pre-hearing disclosure of documents and witness lists under Rules 16 and 17 of the HRTO Rules of Procedure.
After an earlier adjournment due to the applicant's non-attendance, the Tribunal issued multiple Case Assessment Directions warning that failure to comply could result in dismissal.
When the applicant again failed to provide the required materials or communicate with the Tribunal, the application was dismissed as abandoned.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to attend mediation or respond.
The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.
A mediation was scheduled, but the applicant failed to attend and did not communicate with the Tribunal.
The Tribunal subsequently directed the applicant to advise of her intentions, warning that failure to respond could result in the application being deemed abandoned.
The applicant did not respond to the Tribunal's correspondence.
Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.
Request to expedite granted in part; time for filing responses abridged due to applicant's terminal illness.
The applicant filed a Request to Expedite her human rights application alleging discrimination regarding accommodation for a disability.
The applicant provided a declaration stating she is in hospice care and considered terminal.
The respondents did not respond to the request.
The Tribunal granted the request in part, finding that the applicant's terminal illness constituted urgent circumstances requiring expedition to ensure a fair and just resolution.
The Tribunal abridged the time for the respondents to file their Responses to 7 days and offered to schedule an early mediation if the respondents agreed.
Tribunal orders document production and defers requests to add party and amend application to hearing.
The applicant in a human rights proceeding filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking to add a personal respondent, amend the application to include an allegation of reprisal, and order the production of documents.
The respondent did not reply.
The Tribunal ordered the production of text messages and employment contracts, finding them relevant to the issues and potential compensation.
The requests to add a party and amend the application were deferred to the hearing adjudicator.
Human rights applications reactivated after delay; anonymization denied and jurisdictional challenges deferred for formal requests.
The applicant filed requests to reactivate four human rights applications that had been held in abeyance pending the resolution of capacity issues in civil proceedings.
The respondents opposed reactivation due to delay and raised jurisdictional issues, including a claim by one respondent that it was a federally-regulated business.
The Tribunal granted the request to reactivate, finding the applicant had provided a reasonable explanation for the delay and the respondents had not established substantial prejudice.
The Tribunal denied the applicant's request for anonymization and deferred final determination of the jurisdictional issues, directing the respondents to file formal requests for early dismissal.
The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the matter appeared to be outside its jurisdiction, directing the applicant to provide written submissions.
The applicant failed to respond to the NOID.