Kaye Joachim

The applicants requested a revision of disclosure deadlines, alleging that a key witness for the respondent, who was reportedly hospitalized with a potentially fatal condition, was seen in good health distributing Halloween candy.

The Tribunal issued case management orders requiring the respondent to provide written submissions and medical documentation regarding the witness's hospitalization.

The Tribunal also established a procedure for the applicants to add personal respondents to the applications.

The applicant filed a transitional application under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code alleging the respondent failed to provide adequate funding and oversight for students with autism.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed on preliminary grounds, including a prior settlement agreement, res judicata, and abuse of process.

The Tribunal exercised its discretion to hear the preliminary issues before proceeding to the standard mediation process, ordering a schedule for written submissions and a case resolution conference.

The applicant filed an application under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code alleging the respondent failed to provide accommodation required for the applicant to attend school.

The respondent raised preliminary issues including abuse of process and no prima facie case.

The Tribunal exercised its discretion to vary its standard process and ordered a schedule for written submissions on the preliminary issues prior to proceeding to the merits.

The applicant filed an application with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario under the transition provisions of the amended Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the Ontario Human Rights Commission had already dismissed the applicant's complaint prior to the effective date of the new provisions.

Consequently, the complaint was not a 'continued complaint' within the meaning of section 53(3) of the Code.

The Tribunal concluded it had no jurisdiction and dismissed the application.

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The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario granted leave and the application was withdrawn.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 sought to defer the processing of his human rights application due to a serious medical condition.

The respondents did not provide submissions.

The Tribunal granted the deferral, cancelling deadlines for disclosure and case resolution conferences until the applicant is fit to resume.

However, noting that the respondents had failed to file a Response, the Tribunal ordered them to file their Response within 10 days to avoid delay once the applicant is ready to proceed, warning of potential consequences under Rule 3.2 for failure to participate.

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

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed or deferred because the applicant had commenced a civil action based on the same facts.

The Tribunal exercised its discretion to vary its usual rules and ordered the parties to provide written submissions on whether the application is barred by section 34(11) or should be deferred under section 45 of the Code.

The applicant requested to amend the style of cause to reflect the correct legal name of the respondent, Angel Gate Bingo, which the Tribunal granted.

The respondent failed to file a response to the application or attend a scheduled mediation.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondent to file a response within 10 days with an explanation for the delay, warning that failure to do so could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice under Rule 3.2.

The respondents brought a motion to dismiss the human rights application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, or on the basis of abuse of process or issue estoppel, relying on a prior decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The Tribunal held a Case Resolution Conference and orally denied the motion to dismiss, with written reasons to follow.

The Tribunal directed the parties to proceed with the next steps in the process, including the exchange of additional facts and relevant documents.

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

The respondent refused to participate in the scheduled mediation and requested that the application be dismissed or deferred, arguing that two ongoing civil actions between the parties arose from the same circumstances.

The Tribunal exercised its discretion to control its process, cancelled the scheduled mediation, and ordered the parties to provide written submissions on whether the application is barred by section 34(11) of the Code or should be deferred under section 45.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the human rights application on the basis that it was outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction and failed to establish a prima facie case.

The respondent requested that the motion be heard prior to the scheduled case resolution conference.

The Tribunal declined to hear the motion in advance, directing that the motion to dismiss be considered by the adjudicator at the case resolution conference.

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

The respondents failed to attend a scheduled mediation, alleging they had not received the application and that one personal respondent no longer worked for the corporate respondent.

The Tribunal ordered the corporate respondent to provide contact information for the personal respondent and directed the parties to provide submissions on whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to deal with the application as a continued complaint.

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

The respondents argued that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the Ontario Human Rights Commission had already dismissed the complaint under section 36 of the old Code.

The Tribunal ordered the parties to provide additional information and written submissions regarding the dismissal and any reconsideration requests before determining the jurisdictional issue.

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

The respondent requested an extension of time to file its Response until after a preliminary issue regarding whether the matter is a continued complaint is resolved.

The Tribunal granted the extension in part, requiring the respondent to file sections 1 and 3 of the Response by November 26, 2008, but deferring section 2.

The respondent's request for production of the applicant's medical history was dismissed as premature.

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

A mediation was scheduled, but the respondents provided late notice refusing to participate.

To prevent delays in processing the application, the Tribunal exercised its discretion under its Rules of Procedure to convert the scheduled mediation date into a mandatory case management meeting.

The parties were ordered to attend to address preliminary issues and scheduling.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination in the provision of services related to Ontario Works benefits.

The respondent refused to file a Response or participate in mediation until the applicant provided further particulars.

The Tribunal cancelled the mediation and issued a case management direction ordering the respondent to file its Response, followed by the applicant providing a statement of additional facts, in accordance with the expedited process for transitional applications under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application.

The respondents failed to file a Response within the 35-day period required by the Tribunal's Rules and failed to respond to notices regarding mediation.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondents to file a Response and an explanation for the delay by a specified date, warning that failure to do so could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice to them and deeming them to have accepted the allegations.

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

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant requested to cancel a scheduled mediation for medical reasons and to transfer his application from section 53(3) to section 53(5) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal held that because the applicant had already abandoned his complaint at the Commission to make a section 53(3) application, there was no continued complaint to form the basis of a section 53(5) application.

The mediation was cancelled due to the applicant's unavailability and will be rescheduled.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The respondents argued that the application was barred by section 34(11)(a) of the Code because the applicant had already commenced a civil action seeking damages for the same alleged infringement.

The Tribunal exercised its discretion to determine this preliminary jurisdictional issue prior to mediation and ordered the parties to file written submissions.