Josée Bouchard

The applicant requested an order during proceedings to amend her human rights application to add the ground of age, allegations of reprisal, and additional facts and remedies based on incidents occurring after the initial filing.

The respondent did not object to the amendment but disputed the substantive allegations.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding no prejudice to the respondent given the hearing was months away and the new allegations were linked to the original ones.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the Court of Appeal for Ontario, alleging discrimination based on creed and family status regarding a decision upholding his criminal conviction.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that it lacked jurisdiction.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it plain and obvious that the actions of the Court of Appeal in executing its decision-making duties are protected by the doctrine of judicial immunity and fall outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in the provision of services based on ancestry, place of origin, and disability after the respondent refused to process his ODSP application.

The respondent had information indicating the applicant was a resident of Quebec and receiving benefits there.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal held that the refusal was based on place of residence, which is not equivalent to ancestry or place of origin, and there was no evidence of a failure to accommodate a disability.

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

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

The applicant failed to provide an address for the individual respondent and failed to respond to multiple Tribunal directions, including a Case Assessment Direction.

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

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the application on the basis that it appeared to be outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice by the specified deadline.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application which was deferred pending the conclusion of a WSIB proceeding.

After several years, the Tribunal directed the applicant to provide an update on the status of the WSIB proceeding, warning that failure to respond could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's letter within the specified timeframe.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming the respondent failed to accommodate his workplace injury and terminated his employment.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Code, arguing the substance was dealt with by a WSIB decision.

The applicant indicated he was appealing the WSIB decision.

The Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application pending the conclusion of the WSIB appeal, finding that the proceedings overlapped in factual background and subject matter.

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

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation and subsequently failed to respond to the Tribunal's direction to advise of his intentions regarding the application.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Request to Dismiss the application on the basis that the issues in dispute fell within exclusive federal jurisdiction.

The applicant was directed to respond but failed to do so within the required time.

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

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the application failed to identify specific acts of discrimination connected to a Code ground and failed to explain the basis for the alleged reprisal.

The applicant was directed to respond to the NOID by a specified date but failed to do so.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment and contracts nearly two years after the last alleged incident.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for delay.

The applicant argued the last incident was the Tribunal's refusal to let him testify a second time in his son's separate case, but the Tribunal found this did not constitute continued discrimination by the respondent.

Finding no reasonable explanation for the delay, the Tribunal concluded the delay was not incurred in good faith and dismissed the application as untimely under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

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

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation and subsequently failed to respond to multiple communications from the Tribunal directing him to advise of his intentions regarding the application.

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

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

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation and subsequently failed to respond to multiple communications from the Tribunal directing her to advise of her intentions regarding the application.

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

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment because of disability.

The Tribunal had deferred the application pending the completion of related grievance proceedings.

After the applicant failed to respond to multiple communications from the Tribunal requesting the status of the grievance proceedings, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.