Human rights application alleging modern music preference constitutes a creed dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in the provision of services on the basis of creed, claiming that the modern music played at the respondent's community centre was offensive to him as a lover of classical music.
The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss to determine if the application fell within its jurisdiction.
Applying the Supreme Court's test for creed, the Tribunal found that the applicant's musical preferences, while sincerely held, had no religious component or connection to the divine.
The application was dismissed at a preliminary stage because it was plain and obvious that the claim did not relate to a ground of discrimination prohibited by the Human Rights Code.
Request for particulars prior to filing a Response denied; respondents directed to file Response.
The respondents in a human rights application alleging employment discrimination based on disability, sex, and sexual solicitation filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking further particulars before filing their Response.
The Tribunal denied the request, noting its general rule that respondents must file a complete Response before raising preliminary issues like particulars, absent exceptional circumstances.
The Tribunal found the application contained sufficient detail for the respondents to know the case against them and directed them to file their Response within 14 days.
Human rights application against Family Responsibility Office dismissed for lacking a reasonable prospect of success.
The applicant alleged discrimination with respect to services because of sex and family status, claiming the respondent failed to enforce a child support order against her former partner.
The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.
The Tribunal found no evidence connecting the respondent's enforcement actions or delays to the applicant's sex or family status.
The application was dismissed.
Respondent's request for early production of applicant's occupational health file prior to filing Response denied.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability and reprisal.
Before filing its Response, the respondent requested an order requiring the applicant to produce her occupational health file, arguing it was necessary to meaningfully respond.
The Tribunal denied the request, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify delaying the Response or granting early production of the documents, as the respondent had made its decisions based on the information available to it at the time.
Applicant's request for expedited hearing denied; summary hearing directed to assess prospect of success.
The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking an expedited hearing and punitive action against the respondent's counsel.
The Tribunal denied the request, finding no justification for an expedited hearing and no evidence of inappropriate conduct by the respondent.
The Tribunal noted the applicant's own inappropriate allegations and reminded him of the obligation to act courteously.
Additionally, the Tribunal directed that a summary hearing be scheduled to determine whether the application should be dismissed for delay or for having no reasonable prospect of success.
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 by the required deadline.
Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.
Request to add organizational respondent granted; request to remove individual respondents deferred pending further disclosure.
The respondent organization filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to remove two individual respondents and be added as the sole respondent in an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.
The Tribunal granted the request to add the organizational respondent but deferred the request to remove the individual respondents, as it was unclear from the respondents' pleadings who made the decision to dismiss the applicant.
The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because it appeared the application may be outside its jurisdiction.
The applicant was directed to provide written submissions but failed to respond or communicate with the Tribunal.
The applicant filed an application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code.
Human rights application dismissed at summary hearing for lack of particulars and no reasonable prospect of success.
The applicant alleged discrimination by the respondent based on perceived mental illness, including denial of a housing worker and access to a women's shelter.
The applicant failed to provide particulars of her allegations despite being directed to do so.
The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it consisted only of bald assertions with no reasonable prospect of success.
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.
The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.
Human rights application dismissed as the substance was already adjudicated by the Landlord and Tenant Board.
The applicant alleged discrimination in housing based on disability by the respondent landlord.
The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, as the applicant and his roommate had previously brought similar allegations before the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB).
The Tribunal found that the LTB had already appropriately dealt with the substance of the human rights allegations, concluding that the conflict stemmed from the applicant's conduct rather than harassment or discrimination.
Tribunal finds breach of settlement for late policy delivery but orders no remedy absent damages.
The applicant filed an application under s. 45.9(3) of the Human Rights Code alleging the respondent breached their Minutes of Settlement by failing to deliver a revised human rights policy within 30 days.
The Tribunal found that the respondent inadvertently failed to deliver the policy, constituting a breach.
However, because the applicant eventually received the policy during the proceedings and failed to establish any damages flowing from the breach, the Tribunal declined to order any remedy.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to Tribunal direction.
The respondent sought early dismissal of the application.
The Tribunal directed the applicant to respond to the dismissal issues by a specified date, warning that failure to do so could result in the application being deemed abandoned.
The applicant failed to respond to the direction.
Consequently, the Tribunal found the application to be abandoned and dismissed it.
Application dismissed as abandoned after the applicant failed to respond to Tribunal scheduling directions.
The applicant failed to respond to multiple Tribunal directions regarding the rescheduling of a hearing.
Despite being warned that failure to respond would result in the application being deemed abandoned under Rule 5.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, the applicant did not confirm his availability or provide alternative dates.
Request to amend Application granted on consent; request to add individual manager as respondent denied.
The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceeding to amend the Application and add an individual manager as a respondent.
The respondent consented to the amendment subject to conditions, which the Tribunal granted.
The Tribunal denied the request to add the individual manager as a respondent, finding that the manager's actions were taken in the course of employment and there was no compelling juridical reason to add him as a party.
Request to remove respondents' counsel for alleged conflict of interest denied as based on pure supposition.
The applicant requested an interim remedy to remove the respondents' counsel, alleging a conflict of interest because the counsel's firm had previously been retained by a corporate entity involving one of the applicants ten years prior.
The Tribunal denied the request, finding it was based on pure supposition with no evidence that current counsel had any involvement or communication regarding the decade-old matter.
Applicant's request for procedural orders dismissed; directed to provide hearing dates or face abandonment.
The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking reasons for the Tribunal granting the respondents' request to reschedule the hearing, an order for unbound copies of documents, and a meeting to discuss accommodation procedures.
The Tribunal dismissed the Request, finding the rescheduling request was timely, the provision of documents in a binder was reasonable, and the applicant had not articulated specific accommodation needs.
The applicant was directed to respond to previous Tribunal correspondence regarding hearing dates, failing which the application would be dismissed as abandoned.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after parties failed to file settlement confirmation or respond.
The Tribunal was informed that the parties had settled the matter but had not filed a Form 25 confirming the settlement.
The Tribunal directed the parties to file the form or confirm an intention to proceed to a hearing, warning that failure to respond could result in the application being deemed abandoned.
Neither party responded to the correspondence.
Request to reactivate deferred application not processed due to applicant's failure to provide WSIAT decision.
The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceeding to reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) proceeding.
The applicant failed to provide a copy of the WSIAT decision as required by the Tribunal's rules and indicated he would not do so until consulting with the Ombudsman.
The Tribunal directed that it would not process the request to reactivate the application until the applicant provided a copy of the WSIAT decision.