Tribunal set schedule for written submissions on employer's abuse of process argument regarding union's delay.
The applicant union sought revocation of a Review Officer's decision declining to make a production order against the employer for benefit information.
At a pre-hearing conference, the Tribunal determined it would first decide the employer's argument that the application was an abuse of process due to delay before addressing the union's request for a production order and a second pre-hearing conference.
The Tribunal set a schedule for written submissions on the abuse of process issue.
Tribunal scheduled a hearing date for a pay equity compliance application pending settlement discussions.
The Pay Equity Office brought an application alleging the respondent failed to comply with a May 10, 2023 order requiring job evaluations and pay adjustments.
The parties attended a pre-hearing conference and agreed to attempt to negotiate a settlement regarding compliance timelines.
The Tribunal directed the Registrar to schedule a video hearing for September 26, 2025, in the event a settlement is not reached.
Tribunal issued a scheduling order for preliminary objections and merits hearing in a pay equity dispute.
The applicant union challenged a Notice of Decision issued by the Pay Equity Commission Review Services regarding pay equity adjustments for the 1994 to 2021 period.
The respondent employer raised preliminary objections, including delay and lack of jurisdiction.
Following a pre-hearing conference, the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal issued a consent scheduling order setting out the timeline for exchanging agreed statements of fact, witness statements, and hearing dates for both the preliminary objections and the merits.
Tribunal issued a procedural scheduling order on consent in a pay equity maintenance dispute.
The applicant union brought an application under the Pay Equity Act alleging that the respondent hospital improperly created new job classes for Registered Practical Nurses under the guise of a maintenance exercise.
The parties attended a pre-hearing conference and agreed to a procedural schedule for documentary disclosure, agreed statements of fact, and the exchange of witness statements.
The Tribunal issued an order reflecting the agreed schedule and set dates for a further pre-hearing conference and the hearing on the merits.
Human rights application by access parent against doctor, health unit, and College dismissed at summary hearing.
The applicant, an access parent, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on family status, mental health, and other grounds against his child's doctor (SM Medical Centre), the Toronto Health Unit, and the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.
He alleged the doctor improperly denied his child a hepatitis B vaccine and required him to prove his identity to access medical records, that the health unit's vaccination policies created barriers, and that the College's policies and investigation of his complaint were discriminatory.
The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success as the applicant failed to point to any evidence linking the respondents' actions to a protected Code ground.
Mediation deferred pending the outcome of a summary hearing in a related application concerning service dog certification.
The respondent requested an order deferring mediation in this human rights application until the Tribunal rendered a decision in a summary hearing for a separate but related application.
Both applications concerned whether the requirement that service dogs be trained and certified by an accredited facility to receive the Guide Dog Benefit is discriminatory.
The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the outcome of the related summary hearing would be highly relevant to the mediation and that deferral would not cause significant delay.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to Notice of Intent to Dismiss.
The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment.
The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to have been filed outside the one-year limitation period under s. 34(1) of the Human Rights Code, without citing facts constituting good faith for the delay.
The applicant failed to file written submissions in response to the Notice within the allotted time.
Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.
Tribunal denies premature document production and factual amendments but allows amendment to remedial relief sought.
The applicant, an occasional teacher, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination.
In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed the applicant's requests for production of documents and to amend her application.
The Tribunal denied the production request as premature because the hearing dates and document delivery deadlines had not yet been set.
The Tribunal also denied the request to add new factual allegations, finding it would cause delay and prejudice, but granted the request to amend the remedial relief sought.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after parties failed to file confirmation of settlement.
The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to occupancy of accommodation.
The Tribunal was informed that the parties had settled the matter but they failed to file a Confirmation of Settlement Form (Form 25).
After the Tribunal directed the parties to file the form or confirm the intention to proceed, no response was received.
The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after parties failed to file settlement confirmation.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in accommodation based on disability, receipt of public assistance, and reprisal.
The Tribunal was informed the matter had settled but the parties failed to file a Confirmation of Settlement Form.
After the Tribunal directed the parties to file the form or confirm intent to proceed, no response was received.
Request for inquiry denied as the underlying human rights application was withdrawn three years prior.
The applicant filed a Request for a Tribunal Ordered Inquiry regarding an application that she had withdrawn three years earlier.
The respondents opposed the request.
The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the file had been closed upon withdrawal and the matter was at an end, meaning there was no active application upon which to file requests.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to respond to Tribunal correspondence.
The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.
The Tribunal directed the applicant to confirm her availability for a rescheduled mediation session and later warned that failure to respond could result in the application being deemed abandoned.
The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's correspondence.
Consequently, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.
Human rights application dismissed at summary hearing for lacking evidence connecting rescinded interview to race.
The applicant, a self-represented racialized person, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, and ethnic origin after his invitation to an oral interview for a caseworker position was rescinded.
The respondent claimed the invitation was sent in error because the applicant had failed the data entry component of the written assessment.
Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success as there was no evidence connecting the rescinded invitation to a prohibited ground of discrimination, nor any evidence that the respondent's decision-maker was aware of the applicant's race.
Reconsideration request denied as the underlying interim decision and case assessment direction were not final decisions.
The applicant requested reconsideration of an interim decision dismissing his requests for expedited proceedings and an interim remedy, as well as a case assessment direction setting the matter down for a summary hearing.
The Tribunal denied the request, finding that neither the interim decision nor the case assessment direction disposed of any central issues in the application and were therefore not final decisions subject to reconsideration under Rule 26.
Tribunal enforces agreement to remove union respondents in exchange for grievance withdrawal, preventing abuse of process.
The applicant sought to reactivate his human rights application and initially requested to remove the union respondents from the application.
He later attempted to withdraw this request.
The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine if a binding agreement existed between the applicant and the union respondents wherein the union would withdraw the applicant's outstanding grievance in exchange for the applicant removing the union as respondents.
The Tribunal found the union's witness more credible and concluded that a binding agreement had been reached.
Finding that it would be an abuse of process to allow the applicant to resile from the agreement after the union had fulfilled its end by withdrawing the grievance, the Tribunal denied the applicant's request to resile, removed the union respondents, and reactivated the application.
Human rights application dismissed as abandoned after applicant failed to attend summary hearing.
The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment based on colour, ethnic origin, and race.
A summary hearing was scheduled to address whether the application should be dismissed for delay or lack of reasonable prospect of success.
The applicant failed to attend the hearing after her adjournment request was denied.
The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to goods, services, and facilities.
The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination connected to a Code ground.
The applicant failed to file written submissions in response to the Notice.
The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.
Application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as the respondent is a federally regulated telecommunications company.
The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and sex against Rogers Communications Canada Inc. The respondent requested an order dismissing the application on the basis that it is a federally regulated entity.
The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss and, after receiving submissions, concluded that it is plain and obvious that the respondent is a federally regulated service provider.
The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Human rights application alleging racial discrimination by police dismissed for lack of evidence.
The applicant, a Black man, alleged that the Thunder Bay Police Service and an individual officer discriminated against him based on race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, and ethnic origin.
He claimed police failed to adequately investigate his concerns about his children's safety and later unlawfully arrested him for breaching a family court order, while also subjecting him to unwarranted surveillance.
The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the police acted reasonably in assessing the child safety complaint and had reasonable grounds to arrest the applicant for breaching a no-harassment order.
The Tribunal found no credible evidence of surveillance and concluded there was no evidence linking the police's actions to any protected Code grounds.
The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the application failed to identify specific acts of discrimination connected to a protected ground.
The applicant failed to file written submissions in response to the NOID by the specified deadline.
As a result, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.