Eban Bayefsky

The applicant failed to comply with pre-hearing disclosure obligations and requested an extension, citing recent surgeries.

The respondent opposed the extension and requested the Application be dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the medical documentation provided by the applicant did not support his claim that he was incapable of providing the required disclosure.

The Tribunal denied the extension request and prohibited the applicant from filing additional materials or calling witnesses.

However, the Tribunal declined to dismiss the Application, allowing it to proceed with the applicant's evidence strictly limited to the contents of his Application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the WSIB regarding benefits for PTSD.

After previous deferrals pending WSIB and WSIAT appeals, the applicant requested reactivation, but then failed to attend the scheduled preliminary teleconference hearing.

The Tribunal noted the applicant had submitted a late request to further defer the application.

The Tribunal adjourned the preliminary hearing and ordered written submissions on the deferral request.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

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

After the applicant requested a rescheduling, the Tribunal directed the applicant to arrange new dates.

The applicant failed to respond to multiple communications from the Tribunal regarding the new dates.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of creed after a restaurant served her a meat-based meal instead of a requested vegetarian meal, and allegedly mocked her religious beliefs when she complained.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, questioning whether the allegations identified specific acts of discrimination.

After reviewing the applicant's submissions, the Tribunal applied the "plain and obvious" test and concluded it was not plain and obvious that the application fell outside its jurisdiction.

The application was permitted to proceed.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding requested to add her former employer, Your Fit MindBody Inc., as an organizational respondent and to amend her application to seek additional remedies.

The Tribunal applied the three-part test for adding a respondent and the factors for amending an application.

Finding that the proposed respondent could be held liable, that effective remedial orders required its inclusion, and that there was no prejudice given the personal respondent's ownership of the corporation, the Tribunal granted both requests.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The respondent sought dismissal on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide submissions on the respondent's request, warning that failure to do so might result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant failed to respond.

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 because the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

The notice sent by mail was returned as moved/unknown, and the applicant failed to respond to a subsequent email direction to provide updated contact information.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The respondent sought dismissal of the application in its Response.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to submit a Reply by a specified date, warning that failure to do so could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's communications.

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

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in contracts on the ground of disability, claiming her employment contract's 60-day notice requirement was discriminatory.

The respondents requested early dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that an Employment Standards Officer (ESO) had already dealt with the substance of the application by dismissing the applicant's ESA claim.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the ESO decision did not address the substantive human rights claims, as it merely concluded there was no employer-employee relationship.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed because the applicant had signed a full and final release upon termination of her employment.

The applicant argued she signed the release uninformed and under duress.

The Tribunal applied the Pritchard factors and the test for economic duress, finding that the applicant received sufficient consideration and was not subjected to coercion of her will.

The Tribunal upheld the release and dismissed the application as an abuse of process.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the application for failing to identify specific acts of discrimination and directed the applicant to provide submissions.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice.

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

In an interim decision regarding production requests, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario ordered partial disclosure from both parties.

The respondents sought the applicant's complete medical records, which the Tribunal limited to mental health records from the start of her employment due to privacy concerns.

The applicant sought a detailed employee list and investigation files, which the Tribunal narrowed to specific bonus information and available investigation records, noting that one investigation file had been destroyed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his reprisal application following a summary hearing.

The applicant argued that the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence and contained errors of fact regarding the respondent's supervisory authority and the availability of evidence.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was attempting to re-argue issues already canvassed at the summary hearing and denied the request for reconsideration.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

A Notice of Hearing was issued and delivered to the applicant.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing and did not communicate with the Tribunal to explain the absence.

The Tribunal waited 30 minutes before proceeding.

The application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in housing on the basis of sex.

After multiple unsuccessful requests for an adjournment and to participate by teleconference, the applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The respondent's request for costs was denied as the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to award costs.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing on the basis that she had sought out legal counsel who needed time to prepare, and that she was trying to find transportation and funds to attend.

The respondent opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, noting that retaining counsel after a hearing is scheduled is not an extraordinary circumstance justifying an adjournment under the Tribunal's Practice Direction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability, as well as concurrent grievances with her union based on the same facts.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the conclusion of the grievance proceedings.

Finding that grievance arbitrators have the power and responsibility to enforce human rights statutes, the Tribunal deferred the application, noting the applicant could seek to reactivate it within 60 days of the grievance proceedings concluding if the substance was not appropriately dealt with.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sex discrimination, harassment, and reprisal by her manager, which she claimed led to her resignation.

She concurrently filed a grievance with her union based on the same facts.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the conclusion of the grievance proceeding.

Despite the applicant's objections regarding delay and her lack of confidence in the grievance process, the Tribunal deferred the application to avoid duplication of proceedings, noting that grievance arbitrators have the responsibility to enforce human rights statutes.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment because of disability, specifically that the respondent failed to accommodate his workplace injuries.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the outcome of the applicant's related WSIB appeals.

The Tribunal found that deferral was appropriate because the WSIB appeal regarding the applicant's chronic pain disability was directly relevant to the human rights claim.

The application was deferred pending the outcome of the WSIB appeal.

The applicant filed an Application under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal advised the applicant that the Application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction as it failed to identify specific acts of discrimination, and directed the applicant to provide submissions.

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's direction.

Consequently, the Application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.