Reconsideration request denied as applicant failed to establish threshold criteria under Rule 26.5.
The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application.
The applicant argued the decision conflicted with established case law but provided no submissions to support this claim, instead restating his original evidence.
The Tribunal found the applicant failed to meet the threshold criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5 and denied the request.
Respondents' objection to union's intervenor status dismissed after human rights application was reactivated.
The respondents objected to the Canadian Union of Public Employees and its Local 2484 being granted intervenor status, arguing it was inappropriate while the application was deferred and the union was pursuing the same issues in another forum.
The Tribunal dismissed the objection, noting that the application had been reactivated, removing the basis for the objection.
The scope of the union's involvement will be determined by the hearing adjudicator.
Motion for production of medical records granted as documents are arguably relevant to disability discrimination claim.
The respondent in a human rights application regarding employment discrimination based on disability (Type 2 Diabetes) brought a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking production of the applicant's medical records and MTO files.
The applicant opposed, arguing his medical condition was not relevant as the respondent had not confirmed his status in the hiring process.
The Tribunal granted the request, finding the medical documents arguably relevant to assessing whether the respondent breached its obligations under the Human Rights Code.
Human rights application dismissed for being out of time and lacking allegations of discrimination.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by the police regarding an incident in November 2013.
The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application was filed more than a year after the incident.
The applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay to establish good faith.
Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the application contained no allegations of discrimination or reprisal within the meaning of the Human Rights Code.
The application was dismissed as it was plain and obvious that it fell outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.
Tribunal defers second human rights application pending grievance arbitrations but declines to consolidate applications.
The applicant filed two human rights applications alleging discrimination on the basis of creed and reprisal.
The respondents requested that certain documents be struck from the first application, while the applicant requested that the applications be consolidated and deferred pending the conclusion of related grievance arbitrations.
The Tribunal deferred the second application pending the grievance arbitrations but declined to consolidate the applications at this time.
The respondents' request to strike documents was deferred to the member presiding at the upcoming preliminary hearing.
Interim remedy to prevent eviction denied as Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to stay LTB orders.
The applicant filed a Request for an Interim Remedy seeking an order to prevent her eviction, following an order for vacant possession issued by the Landlord and Tenant Board.
The Tribunal denied the request, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to stay a court order or an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board, which has exclusive jurisdiction over residential eviction matters.
The Tribunal also directed that a summary hearing be scheduled to determine if the application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.
Request for interim remedy to halt eviction proceedings denied for lack of apparent merit.
The applicant filed a Request for an Interim Remedy seeking an order to prohibit the respondent from proceeding with an eviction.
The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the application lacked apparent merit connecting the eviction to Code grounds.
Furthermore, the Tribunal noted it likely lacked jurisdiction to intervene in the Landlord and Tenant Board's eviction process, and the balance of convenience did not favour granting the remedy.
Human rights application deferred pending conclusion of concurrent grievance arbitration and WSIB proceedings.
The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the conclusion of concurrent grievance arbitration and WSIB proceedings.
The respondent supported deferral, while the self-represented applicant opposed it due to concerns about delay.
The Tribunal found significant overlap in the issues raised across the proceedings and deferred the application to avoid the potential for differing conclusions on the same facts, noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority to enforce human rights obligations.
Human rights application deferred pending conclusion of concurrent grievance arbitration on the same issues.
The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the human rights application pending the conclusion of an ongoing grievance arbitration involving the same parties and issues.
The respondent supported deferral, while the applicant opposed it on the basis of delay.
The Tribunal ordered the application deferred, noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority to enforce human rights obligations and that deferral is appropriate to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent factual findings.
Request to remove personal respondent granted as corporate respondent accepted vicarious liability.
The Randstad respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking to remove the personal respondent Sarah Feere from the human rights application.
The applicant did not respond to the request.
Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal found that the corporate respondent was liable for the conduct, there was no issue concerning vicarious liability, and there were no allegations of discriminatory conduct by the personal respondent.
The request was granted and Sarah Feere was removed as a respondent.
Tribunal dismisses older human rights allegations for delay but allows recent email allegation to proceed.
The respondent requested the dismissal of the human rights application, arguing that the timely allegation regarding a September 2014 email had no reasonable prospect of success and that the remaining allegations were out of time.
The Tribunal declined to dismiss the email allegation at the preliminary stage, finding that the respondent's explanation required evidence.
However, the Tribunal dismissed the allegations of incidents occurring between 2000 and 2009 due to delay, as the gaps in time were too significant to constitute a series of incidents under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.
The July 2013 allegation was permitted to proceed pending further evidence.
Respondent deemed to have accepted allegations and waived participation after failing to respond to application.
The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination contrary to the Human Rights Code.
The respondent failed to respond to the application despite multiple attempts by the Tribunal to deliver the application and notices regarding the consequences of failing to respond.
The Tribunal ordered that the respondent is deemed to have accepted all allegations in the application and waived all rights to notice or participation in the proceedings.
A case management conference call was scheduled to determine the next steps for the applicant to prove their case and seek remedies.
Human rights application deferred pending conclusion of concurrent grievance proceedings regarding the applicant's dismissal.
The applicant filed a human rights application regarding her dismissal from employment, while concurrent grievances were also filed on her behalf.
The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the conclusion of the grievance process.
The applicant opposed deferral, arguing that not all issues would be addressed in the grievances and that she had limited control over the grievance process.
The Tribunal found significant overlap in the issues, particularly regarding the dismissal, and held that the orderly administration of justice favoured deferral.
The application was deferred pending the completion of the grievance process.
Age discrimination application dismissed as applicant failed to prove differential treatment or adverse consequences.
The applicant, a trainee welder placed by an employment agency, alleged that the respondent discriminated against him on the basis of age.
He claimed a training coordinator asked his age, told him he was too old for the job, and deliberately failed to train him so he would be terminated.
The Tribunal found that while the coordinator did ask the applicant's age, the comment alone did not violate the Code.
Furthermore, there was no evidence of differential treatment or adverse consequences, as the coordinator was not responsible for training and the applicant received the same training as others before voluntarily quitting.
The application was dismissed.
Request for production of respondent's retainer documents denied due to solicitor-client privilege.
The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking the production of the respondent's retainer documents with its counsel, alleging the respondent changed counsel to delay mediation.
The Tribunal denied the request, finding no evidentiary basis for the theory and noting that the requested documents are privileged.
The applicant was directed to provide alternative dates for mediation.
Tribunal consolidates applications, allows amendment, and directs summary hearing on prospect of success against consultants.
The applicant filed two human rights applications alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and reprisal against his employer and various consultants.
In this interim decision, the Tribunal granted the applicant's request to amend his first application.
The Tribunal denied a request to dismiss the application against one respondent under section 53(8) of the Code, but directed a summary hearing to determine whether the applications against the consulting respondents had no reasonable prospect of success.
The Tribunal also ordered the consolidation of the two applications.
Reconsideration request denied as the interim decision removing personal respondents was not a final decision.
The applicant requested reconsideration of an interim decision that removed seven personal respondents from his human rights application.
The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the interim decision was not a 'final decision' within the meaning of the Tribunal's Rules, as it did not dispose of the central issues or deprive the applicant of a remedy.
Furthermore, the applicant failed to establish that the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence or raised a matter of general or public importance.
Reconsideration request denied; applicant failed to establish threshold criteria after application dismissed as abandoned.
The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application as abandoned.
The applicant argued she did not receive the Tribunal's correspondence until after the deadline because she was out of town.
The Tribunal found that the applicant received the correspondence before the decision was released but took no steps to contact the Tribunal.
The Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to establish any of the threshold criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26 and denied the request.
Request to defer application and produce WSIB file prior to filing Response denied.
The respondent requested an order to defer the human rights application pending a WSIB appeal and sought production of the applicant's WSIB file before filing its Response.
The Tribunal denied the request at this stage, finding it unclear how the WSIB file was relevant to the core allegation that the respondent failed to offer the applicant work after he was cleared to return.
The respondent was directed to file its Response within 14 days.
Adjournment request denied; retaining unavailable counsel after hearing dates are fixed is not an extraordinary circumstance.
The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because he had recently retained representation who was unavailable for the hearing dates.
The Tribunal denied the request, noting that under its Practice Direction, adjournments outside the 14-day rescheduling period are only granted in extraordinary circumstances.
The Tribunal held that retaining counsel after hearing dates have been fixed is not an extraordinary circumstance, and parties are expected to retain representatives who are available on the scheduled dates.