Human rights application dismissed under section 45.1 as OLRB previously determined termination was not pregnancy-related.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging her employment was terminated due to her pregnancy.
The respondents brought a motion to dismiss the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter had already been dealt with in a proceeding under the Employment Standards Act.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board had previously held a hearing and concluded that the decision to terminate the applicant was not tainted by her pregnancy.
The Tribunal found that the OLRB proceeding appropriately dealt with the issues in dispute and dismissed the application.
Human rights application withdrawn following full and final release and applicant's failure to respond.
The applicant filed an application under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code.
The respondents provided correspondence evidencing the applicant's intent to withdraw the application following a full and final release.
The applicant did not respond to the Tribunal's notice.
The Tribunal granted leave to withdraw the application.
Historical condominium rules restricting children's pool access and 'adult lifestyle' promotion violated family status protections.
The applicant, a resident of a condominium, alleged discrimination on the basis of age and family status regarding the use of shared recreational facilities, specifically age restrictions and limited 'family swim' hours for the pool.
The Tribunal found that while the current family swim hours were not discriminatory, the respondents' historical practices—including more restrictive hours, raising the unaccompanied access age, and promoting the building as 'adult lifestyle'—created an unwelcoming environment that violated the Human Rights Code.
The reprisal and age discrimination claims were dismissed.
The applicant was awarded $1,000 in general damages.
Tribunal ordered two human rights applications with identical facts to proceed together for mediation.
The applicants filed two applications under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code.
The Tribunal noted that the applications involved virtually identical facts and raised similar legal issues.
To ensure a fair, just, and highly expeditious process, the Tribunal ordered that the applications proceed together for the purposes of mediation and directed the parties to provide available dates.
Human rights application withdrawn with leave of the Tribunal.
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.
Human rights application alleging poisoned work environment dismissed due to vague and unconvincing evidence.
The applicant alleged he experienced a poisoned work environment due to incessant racial name calling by co-workers.
The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence regarding the alleged name calling to be vague and unconvincing.
The application was dismissed as the applicant failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that his work environment was poisoned.
Request for reconsideration of dismissed human rights application denied for failing to meet procedural grounds.
The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application.
The Tribunal reviewed the request under Rule 25.5 of its Rules of Procedure.
The applicant raised new factual allegations, but the Tribunal found they were not relevant to the issues determined in the original decision and could have been disclosed earlier.
Finding no grounds that outweighed the public interest in the finality of decisions, the Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration.
Human rights application dismissed; employer met duty to accommodate employee who denied alcohol addiction.
The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming the respondents failed to accommodate him and terminated his employment.
The respondents asserted the applicant was terminated for repeatedly violating a workplace rule prohibiting attendance under the influence of alcohol.
The Tribunal found that while the respondents suspected an alcohol problem and offered assistance, the applicant denied having a disability and refused accommodation.
The Tribunal concluded the respondents met their duty to accommodate and dismissed the application.
Application against personal respondent withdrawn with leave of the Tribunal.
The applicant filed a human rights application against a corporate respondent and two personal respondents.
The corporate respondent advised it could not accept service for one of the personal respondents, Paul Boyd, as he no longer worked there.
The Tribunal directed the applicant to serve him directly or advise if she wished to withdraw against him.
The applicant advised she did not wish to proceed against Mr. Boyd.
The Tribunal granted leave to withdraw the application against Mr. Boyd.
Tribunal issued an interim decision setting a final deadline for respondents to file their Responses.
The respondents failed to file their Responses within the 35-day period.
The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondents that failure to file Responses by a specified deadline could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming them to have accepted the allegations.
Request for second document production order denied as previous order was clear and unambiguous.
The respondents requested a second order for the production of the applicant's medical records, arguing that the applicant had unduly narrowed the scope of a previous production order to only records relating to a flu or cold.
The Tribunal agreed that the applicant had construed the prior order too narrowly, clarifying that it captured all records created by medical practitioners in relation to his health condition in the month before or after the date of the alleged intoxication.
However, the Tribunal declined to issue a second order, finding that the previous order was clear and unambiguous.
Tribunal grants respondent's request to release applicant's medical records to its legal department but defers disclosure issues.
The respondents in a human rights application brought preliminary requests for orders.
The Tribunal granted the corporate respondent's request to release the applicant's medical documentation from its Employee Health Services Division to its legal department, noting the applicant did not object.
The Tribunal refused the respondents' request to order the applicant to immediately provide detailed particulars and documents, deferring the issue of compliance with disclosure rules to the Case Resolution Conference.
Other preliminary issues regarding timeliness and a deceased respondent were also deferred.
Applicant ordered to produce documents regarding subsequent employment relevant to respondents' defence of unavailability.
The respondents in a human rights application alleging employment discrimination based on sexual orientation requested the production of documents relating to the applicant's subsequent employment delivering mail.
The respondents argued the applicant stopped being scheduled for work because she made herself unavailable after obtaining other employment.
The Tribunal ordered the applicant to produce time sheets or invoices indicating the dates she worked delivering mail from December 2007 through 2008, finding the information arguably relevant to the respondents' defence.
Request to reconsider refusal to amend human rights application dismissed.
The applicant sought to amend his human rights application by adding a new ground of discrimination, which the Tribunal previously refused.
The applicant filed reply submissions, asking that they be considered on the request to amend or as a request for reconsideration.
The Tribunal found that nothing in the reply submissions supported a different conclusion, as the Code requires transitional applications to be based on the subject-matter of the original complaint filed with the Commission.
The request for reconsideration was dismissed.
The applicant filed an application under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code and subsequently requested leave to withdraw it.
The respondents made no submissions on the request.
Human rights application dismissed as an abuse of process due to previously signed releases.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination following his termination from employment.
The respondents requested early dismissal on the basis that the applicant had signed two releases in their favour, one at the time of termination and another to settle a Small Claims Court wrongful dismissal action.
The Tribunal found that the applicant had signed the releases without duress and had failed to disclose his human rights complaint during the Small Claims Court settlement.
The Tribunal concluded that allowing the application to proceed would be manifestly unfair to the respondents and an abuse of process under section 23(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.
The application was dismissed.
Mediation cancelled and case management directions issued after respondents refused to attend mediation.
The applicant filed a transitional application under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code.
The respondents indicated they did not wish to attend mediation.
The Tribunal cancelled the scheduled mediation and issued case management directions requiring the parties to exchange statements of facts and arguably relevant documents in preparation for a Case Resolution Conference.
Tribunal allows amendment to add family status ground to transitional human rights application.
The applicant sought to amend her human rights application to add family status as a ground of discrimination, alleging she was prevented from registering for a soccer club as a reprisal for her parents' previous complaints.
The respondents objected to the amendment and sought to transfer the matter to Part IV of the Code, as well as to remove an individual respondent and the reprisal ground.
The Tribunal allowed the amendment to add family status, finding no prejudice to the respondents, and dismissed the respondents' preliminary requests, directing that the remaining issues be addressed at the case resolution conference.
Request to amend transitional human rights application to add age discrimination denied due to unexplained delay.
The applicant filed a transitional application under s. 53(3) of the Human Rights Code based on a 2006 complaint alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.
In December 2008, the applicant sought to amend the application to add a new ground of discrimination based on age.
The Tribunal dismissed the request to amend, noting that the new ground would require a new factual foundation and cause delay.
Under the Transitional Application Rules, preliminary requests to add grounds are not normally entertained unless necessary to ensure a fair, just, and highly expeditious process.
Given the unexplained delay of over two years, the Tribunal found the amendment was not necessary and rejected the request.
Tribunal issues case management directions for mediation and preliminary dismissal requests in transitional human rights applications.
The applicant filed two transitional applications under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code against his former employer and his trade union, alleging discrimination on the basis of sex, sexual solicitation, and reprisal regarding the termination of his employment.
The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing that the applications proceed together for the purposes of mediation.
The Tribunal also issued case management directions regarding the proper service of certain individual respondents and set a schedule for submissions on the respondents' preliminary requests to dismiss the applications.