Request for document production denied as documents were not relevant to preliminary issues.
The applicant, a former Justice of the Peace, filed human rights applications alleging discrimination in employment.
Prior to a Case Resolution Conference to determine preliminary issues, the applicant requested an order for the production of documents.
The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate how the requested documents were relevant to the preliminary issues, and noted that some requests were in the nature of discovery questions or raised issues of solicitor-client privilege.
Tribunal issued case management directions after respondent's response was returned as unclaimed mail.
The applicant filed a transitional application under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code.
In a prior interim decision, the Tribunal directed the respondent to deliver a response.
The respondent attempted delivery by registered mail, but it was returned as unclaimed.
The Tribunal issued further case management directions, indicating it would forward the material to the applicant by regular mail and setting deadlines for the delivery of additional facts and arguably relevant documents.
Mediation cancelled and case management directions issued after respondents refused to participate in mediation.
The Tribunal scheduled a mediation, but the respondents wrote to the Tribunal refusing to participate.
The Tribunal cancelled the mediation and issued case management directions requiring the parties to exchange documents and statements of facts in preparation for a case resolution conference.
Tribunal directs two human rights applications to proceed together and orders submissions on settlement bar.
The applicant filed two human rights applications alleging discrimination in employment by his former employer on the basis of disability, and by his trade union for failing to represent him.
The Tribunal directed that the applications proceed together due to similar facts and legal issues.
The union raised a preliminary issue that the complaints were barred by a prior settlement.
The Tribunal issued case management directions for the parties to provide written submissions on whether the applications are barred under section 34(11)(b) or should be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.
Tribunal orders production of materials considered by transit appeal panel but denies request for panel members' notes.
The applicant, who alleges discrimination in services on the basis of disability regarding access to public transit, sought production of notes taken by members of the Mobility Plus Eligibility Appeal Panel and materials relied upon by the Panel.
The Tribunal denied the request for the Panel members' notes, finding them not arguably relevant to whether the decision or criteria were discriminatory.
However, the Tribunal ordered the respondent to produce any other documents or materials considered by the Appeal Panel that had not already been provided to the applicant.
Tribunal directed submissions on whether to defer human rights application pending related grievance arbitrations.
The respondents requested an extension of time to file their Response and asked that the human rights application be deferred pending the completion of two related grievance arbitrations.
The Tribunal directed the parties to file written submissions on whether the application ought to be deferred under section 45 of the Human Rights Code, and granted the respondents 20 days to file their Response.
Human rights application deferred pending conclusion of ongoing grievance arbitration dealing with identical harassment allegations.
The applicant, a teacher, filed a human rights application alleging a course of harassment by the respondent school board and individual respondents.
The respondents requested that the application be deferred pending the outcome of an ongoing grievance arbitration dealing with the same issues, and that parts of the application be dismissed for delay or because they were resolved by prior settlements.
The Tribunal deferred the application, finding that the grievance arbitration was dealing with indistinguishable facts and issues and should be allowed to conclude first.
The Tribunal declined to dismiss any parts of the application for delay or abuse of process at this preliminary stage, noting that the respondents could renew those requests if the application is re-opened after the arbitration.
Tribunal orders submissions on deferral pending ESA proceeding and directs production of documents.
The applicant filed a human rights application and a parallel Employment Standards Act claim regarding her termination.
The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the parties to provide submissions on whether the human rights application should be deferred pending the outcome of the ESA proceeding.
The Tribunal also ordered the applicant to produce relevant doctor's notes and earnings records, and ordered the Director of Employment Standards to produce a copy of the applicant's ESA claim.
Employer ordered to provide last known addresses of individual respondents to facilitate service.
The applicant requested that the respondent employer provide the last known addresses of the individual respondents so she could serve them with the Application.
The employer refused without a Tribunal order.
The Tribunal ordered the employer to provide the addresses within five days and gave the applicant 30 days to serve the individual respondents, failing which the Tribunal would consider removing them as parties.
Request to add respondents denied as applicant failed to show exceptional circumstances for the delay.
The applicant filed a request to add two individual respondents to her human rights application, alleging they were employees of the corporate respondent who participated in the alleged Code breaches.
The Tribunal denied the request, noting that under section 53(3) of the Code, applications must be based on the subject-matter of the original complaint, and Rule 5.15 requires exceptional circumstances to add parties.
The applicant provided no explanation for the delay or why the individuals were not named in the original complaint, failing to establish exceptional circumstances.
Interim remedy request declined due to procedural deficiencies and failure to schedule case resolution conference.
The applicant filed a request for an interim remedy seeking wage payments pending the resolution of her human rights application.
The Tribunal declined to consider the request because it was procedurally deficient, filed on the wrong form, lacked sworn declarations, and the applicant had failed to confirm her availability for a case resolution conference.
The Tribunal directed the parties to confirm their availability for a case resolution conference and permitted the applicant to renew her request at that time if done in accordance with the proper rules.
Tribunal ordered written submissions on whether to defer human rights application pending ongoing labour arbitration.
The applicant filed a human rights application under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code.
The respondents requested that the application be deferred because an ongoing labour arbitration proceeding concerned the same subject matter.
The Tribunal cancelled the scheduled mediation and ordered the parties to provide written submissions on whether the application should be deferred pursuant to section 45 of the Code.
Mediation cancelled and case management directions issued after applicant refused to participate in mediation.
The applicant filed an application under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code and subsequently refused to participate in the scheduled mediation.
The Tribunal cancelled the mediation and issued a case management direction, ordering the parties to exchange documents and prepare for a case resolution conference in accordance with the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.
Tribunal directs four identical human rights applications to proceed together for mediation.
The applicants filed applications under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code.
The Tribunal noted that these applications were identical to two earlier applications involving the same respondents, except for the identity of the applicants.
To ensure a fair, just, and highly expeditious process, the Tribunal directed that all four applications proceed together for the purposes of mediation.
Tribunal directs two related transitional human rights applications to proceed together for mediation.
The applicant filed two transitional applications under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability by his employer and his union.
The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing that the two applications proceed together for the purposes of mediation, as they arise out of similar circumstances and involve similar facts.
The Tribunal also clarified that a newly named individual could not be added as a respondent without exceptional circumstances.
Tribunal ordered submissions on whether to defer human rights application pending Police Services Act proceeding.
The respondents requested that the human rights application be deferred pending the completion of an ongoing proceeding under the Police Services Act that raised identical issues.
The Tribunal cancelled the scheduled mediation and ordered the parties to provide written submissions on whether the application ought to be deferred pursuant to section 45 of the Human Rights Code.
Case management directions issued after parties failed to attend mediation and respondent failed to deliver Response.
The applicant filed an application under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code.
The respondent filed a Response with the Tribunal but failed to deliver it to the applicant.
Neither party attended the scheduled mediation.
The Tribunal issued case management directions requiring the respondent to deliver the Response to the applicant and setting out a timeline for the exchange of documents and facts in preparation for a case resolution conference.
Two human rights applications against employer and union consolidated due to similar facts and issues.
The applicant filed two applications under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, colour, race, ethnic origin, and place of origin against his employer and his union.
The Tribunal found that the applications involved similar facts and legal issues and ordered that they proceed together to ensure a fair, just, and highly expeditious process.
The parties were directed to provide available dates for mediation.
Tribunal ordered written submissions on whether human rights application should be stayed due to corporate bankruptcy proposal.
The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondents.
The corporate respondent made a proposal to creditors under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, triggering an automatic stay of proceedings.
The Tribunal cancelled the scheduled mediation and issued case management directions for the parties to provide written submissions on whether the application should be stayed against the corporate respondent.
The Tribunal also directed the parties to locate a personal respondent who had left the corporate respondent's employ.
Mediation cancelled and case management directions issued after respondent refused to attend mediation.
The respondent refused to attend the scheduled mediation, stating it was unable to negotiate an individual settlement.
The Tribunal cancelled the mediation and issued case management directions, ordering the parties to exchange additional facts, arguably relevant documents, and positions on remedies in preparation for a case resolution conference.