Kaye Joachim

The respondents requested the dismissal of a human rights application alleging sexual solicitation and harassment by a building manager, arguing the matter was already dealt with by the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) during eviction proceedings.

The Tribunal found that while the LTB considered whether eviction notices constituted harassment, it did not assess the allegations of sexual solicitation or apply human rights principles.

The Tribunal concluded the LTB did not appropriately deal with the substance of the application under s. 45.1 of the Code.

The respondents' alternative arguments for dismissal based on issue estoppel and abuse of process were also rejected, and the motion to dismiss was denied.

The applicant filed an application under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code.

The respondent argued that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the underlying complaint had been dismissed by the Commission and was therefore not a continued complaint.

The Tribunal cancelled the scheduled mediation and ordered the parties to provide written submissions on the jurisdictional issue.

The applicant filed a human rights application under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code.

The respondents filed a response arguing the application was barred because the applicant had previously resigned and executed a full and final release in exchange for a separation package.

The Tribunal, on its own initiative, cancelled the scheduled mediation and ordered the parties to provide written submissions on whether the application was barred by the settlement, directing that a case resolution conference be scheduled to hear oral submissions on the preliminary issue.

The applicant filed an application under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code after his complaint was dismissed by the Commission.

The respondents argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the complaint was dismissed and not 'continued' under the transition provisions, and alternatively that the application was an abuse of process.

The Tribunal found that because the Commission had granted an extension of time and the applicant filed a timely request for reconsideration, the complaint was 'continued' under section 53(2).

The Tribunal held it had jurisdiction and that the application was not an abuse of process, directing the parties to mediation.

The applicant filed an application under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code.

Both parties agreed to waive the mandatory mediation process and requested that the application proceed to the next stage.

The Tribunal cancelled the scheduled mediation and issued case management directions, setting deadlines for the exchange of additional facts, remedies sought, and arguably relevant documents, and directed the parties to schedule a case resolution conference.

The applicant filed a transitional application under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code.

In their response, the respondents argued that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction due to the statutory immunity provided to child protection workers under section 15(6) of the Child and Family Services Act, and that the matter fell under the internal complaint process.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision cancelling the scheduled mediation and ordering the parties to provide written submissions on the jurisdictional issue.

The applicant filed a human rights application.

The respondents filed a response asserting that the issues were barred by res judicata because the Ontario Labour Relations Board had already issued a decision on substantially the same issues under the Employment Standards Act.

The Tribunal, on its own initiative, cancelled the scheduled mediation and ordered the parties to provide written submissions and attend a case resolution conference to determine whether the application is barred under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code or the doctrine of res judicata.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision to clarify matters from a previous decision.

The respondents were ordered to file written submissions responding to the applicants' assertions that one of the respondents was in apparent good health, and to provide details of her hospitalization.

The Tribunal will then determine whether to advance the date of the Case Resolution Conference.

The applicant filed an application under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant subsequently withdrew the application with leave of the Tribunal.

Three applications were filed under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code involving similar parties, facts, and legal issues.

The Tribunal ordered that the applications proceed together for the purposes of mediation to ensure a fair, just, and highly expeditious process.

The applicant filed an application under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code.

Following an unsuccessful mediation, both parties failed to comply with the Tribunal's directions to provide hearing availability, file witness lists, and make disclosure.

The Tribunal cancelled the scheduled case resolution conference due to the lack of pre-hearing disclosure.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to contact the Tribunal within 10 days with an explanation for her failure to comply with the Rules, failing which the application would be deemed abandoned and the file closed.

The applicant filed an application under s. 53(3) of the Human Rights Code alleging that the WSIB and its employees aided and abetted her employer in refusing to accommodate her disability by denying her loss of earnings benefits.

The respondents refused to participate in mediation and raised preliminary objections regarding the Tribunal's jurisdiction and whether the application disclosed a prima facie case.

The Tribunal exercised its discretion to cancel the scheduled mediation and directed the parties to file written submissions on the preliminary issues first.

The applicant filed a transitional application under s. 53(3) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision addressing three procedural issues.

First, the Tribunal found the applicant failed to serve one of the personal respondents and ordered the corporate respondent to provide his last known address.

Second, the Tribunal refused the applicant's request to add new respondents not named in the original Commission complaint.

Finally, the Tribunal found the applicant's insulting and profane emails to Tribunal staff and respondents' counsel constituted an abuse of process.

Under s. 23(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, the Tribunal ordered the applicant to cease emailing the respondents and to stop using profane language in his communications.

The applicant filed a transitional application under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code.

The corporate respondent advised it could not accept service for a former employee, the personal respondent.

The Tribunal directed the corporate respondent to provide the personal respondent's last known address for service.

Additionally, because the corporate respondent refused to attend the scheduled mediation, the Tribunal cancelled the mediation and issued case management directions to prepare for a case resolution conference.

The applicants filed two separate applications under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code involving identical facts and similar legal issues.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision ordering that the applications proceed together for the purposes of mediation to ensure a fair, just, and highly expeditious process.

The parties were directed to provide available dates for mediation.

The applicant filed an application under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code and subsequently refused to participate in mediation.

The Tribunal noted that while a refusal to mediate may impede efficient processing and warrant a case management direction to attend, this application could be processed expeditiously without such attendance.

The Tribunal directed the parties to proceed to the next step, preparing for a case resolution conference, and set deadlines for the exchange of additional facts, remedies sought, and arguably relevant documents.

The applicant filed a human rights application and a Statement of Delivery, but the respondent claimed it had not received the application.

To expedite matters, the Tribunal provided a copy of the application to the respondent and directed it to file a Response within 35 days.

The Tribunal denied the respondent's request for full particulars and audiotapes prior to filing its Response, finding the request premature as mediation is the first step under the Tribunal's Rules.

The respondents requested that the human rights application be dismissed or deferred because a civil court action raising similar issues had been commenced.

The Tribunal cancelled the scheduled mediation and ordered the parties to provide written submissions on whether the application is barred by section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code or ought to be deferred under section 45.

The applicant sought to withdraw her human rights application filed under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant requested reconsideration of the Tribunal's decisions dismissing his human rights applications.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to identify any potentially determinative new facts or evidence, that he had received notice and participated fully in the proceedings, and that the decisions did not conflict with established jurisprudence.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant merely disagreed with the findings on the merits, which is not a sufficient basis for reconsideration.

The requests for reconsideration were denied.