Eban Bayefsky

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code against the Social Benefits Tribunal.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) on the basis that the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

After the applicant failed to respond to the NOID and a subsequent direction from the Tribunal, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The respondent requested dismissal on the basis that another proceeding had dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to file a Reply and granted multiple extensions.

After the applicant failed to file a Reply by the final deadline or respond to the Tribunal's communications, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination, which the Tribunal deferred pending the completion of related WSIB proceedings.

After the WSIB appeals process concluded due to the respondent's failure to file a confirmation of appeal, the applicant requested to re-activate the application.

Noting the completion of the WSIB proceedings and the absence of any objection from the respondent, the Tribunal granted the request to re-activate.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by her employer based on gender identity, race, colour, ethnic origin, and ancestry.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal found that the applicant provided no evidence connecting the alleged workplace mistreatment to any protected grounds under the Code, nor any evidence of reprisal.

The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction and directed the applicant to respond.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice and a subsequent Tribunal letter.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant alleged that police officers assaulted him in a Salvation Army chapel and stole his property because of his race, ancestry, ethnic origin, and creed.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that even assuming the applicant's version of events was true, he failed to point to any evidence connecting the alleged mistreatment to a protected ground under the Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination and reprisal contrary to the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal scheduled a summary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to attend the teleconference hearing.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned in accordance with its Practice Direction on Summary Hearing Requests.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in goods, services, and facilities on the ground of disability, specifically regarding the denial of ODSP funding.

The respondents requested the removal of two personal respondents (an ODSP case worker and a manager) and requested a summary hearing.

The Tribunal granted the request to remove the case worker, finding her alleged conduct related to implementing organizational policy, but denied the request to remove the manager, as the allegations against him concerned personal disparaging comments.

The Tribunal also denied the request for a summary hearing.

In an application alleging discrimination in services on the ground of family status against a gymnastics club, both parties brought Requests for Order During Proceedings (RFOPs).

The applicant sought production of various documents and to amend her application to add the ground of disability.

The respondent sought to amend its response to add a statutory defence under section 20(3) of the Human Rights Code and to withdraw certain portions.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's production request only in part, ordering the disclosure of a complete email chain.

The Tribunal allowed the respondent to add the section 20(3) defence but denied the withdrawal of portions of the response at this stage.

The applicant's request to add the ground of disability was denied as it would significantly alter and expand the proceedings without an evidentiary basis.

The respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to dismiss the human rights application as abandoned.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to respond and provide pre-hearing disclosure.

The applicant failed to respond within the required timeframe.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The respondents requested the early dismissal of the human rights application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application had been appropriately dealt with in a prior Employment Standards Act (ESA) claim.

The Employment Standards Officer had awarded the applicant termination and severance pay, finding that his lateness was a consequence of his learning disability and not wilful misconduct.

The Tribunal denied the request for early dismissal, finding that the ESA proceeding did not address the broader human rights issues of whether the employer failed to accommodate the applicant's disability or terminated him on discriminatory grounds.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and wrongful dismissal by the respondent school board.

The applicant also filed a concurrent grievance alleging termination without just cause.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the conclusion of the grievance proceeding.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the grievance would likely deal with the same allegations of discriminatory treatment and that allowing both to proceed simultaneously could lead to inconsistent findings.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal was advised 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 the intention to proceed to a hearing by a specified date, warning that failure to do so might result in the application being deemed abandoned.

Neither party responded.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the application appeared to be outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant was directed to provide submissions but failed to respond by the deadline.

As a result, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

The applicant's counsel subsequently advised the Tribunal that the matter had settled and requested the hearing be cancelled.

The Tribunal directed the parties to file a Confirmation of Settlement (Form 25) or comply with pre-hearing disclosure obligations.

Despite multiple directions and a warning that the application could be deemed abandoned, the applicant failed to file the required form or confirm an intention to proceed.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board discriminated against him by denying benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder.

The application had been previously deferred pending internal appeals.

Following legislative amendments, the respondent granted benefits, and the applicant requested reactivation of the human rights application while simultaneously appealing the new benefits decision to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT).

The Tribunal found that the outcome of the WSIAT appeal could bear on the human rights issues and deferred the application to avoid inconsistent findings.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the ground of disability.

On the day of the scheduled hearing, the applicant failed to attend, citing a family emergency, and emailed the respondent suggesting the matter be dismissed.

The Tribunal adjourned the hearing and issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to confirm her intention to proceed.

When the applicant failed to respond by the deadline, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing.

The respondent requested early dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that a prior investigation by Ombudsman Ontario appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that an Ombudsman investigation is not a 'proceeding' within the meaning of the Code as it lacks judicial or quasi-judicial guarantees of procedural fairness.

However, noting that the application failed to identify specific acts of discrimination or reprisal, the Tribunal ordered a summary hearing to determine if the application has no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the ground of record of offences.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to allege any conduct that would constitute discrimination on the basis of a conviction for an offence in respect of which a pardon has been granted or a provincial offence.

The Tribunal found it plain and obvious that the application did not fall within its jurisdiction and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to amend his human rights application to add the ground of reprisal and additional remedies, following the termination of his employment.

The respondent did not file a response to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, finding that the amendments were an extension of the initial application, the request was made early in the process, and there was no prejudice to the respondent.