Laurie Letheren

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to summarily dismiss the human rights application.

They argued that the Islamic Society of Guelph is a special interest group exempt from the Human Rights Code under section 18, and that it is not a vocational association as alleged by the applicant.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the section 18 exemption requires a full evidentiary record to determine if the organization's activities are fundamentally religious.

The Tribunal also noted the applicant could amend the application to allege discrimination in services rather than vocational association membership.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because a concurrent grievance appeared to address the same incidents.

Neither party provided submissions on the issue.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance proceeding to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the outcome of another proceeding and later requested a status update, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal.

The applicant failed to provide the requested update.

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

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous decision that dismissed his application alleging discrimination by the respondent police services.

The applicant argued there were new facts, conflicts with established jurisprudence, and matters of public importance.

The Tribunal found that the new evidence related to events occurring after the application and could not be determinative.

The Tribunal also found no conflict with jurisprudence or procedure, noting the applicant was attempting to reargue his case.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, and ethnic origin.

The respondent, Centennial College, requested to add Paladin Security as a respondent, arguing the applicant was employed by Paladin Security, which provided on-site security services.

The Tribunal applied the Smyth factors and granted the request to add Paladin Security.

The Tribunal also declined to defer the application, as the applicant's union grievance was being held in abeyance pending the outcome of the human rights application.

Finally, the Tribunal upheld its decision to grant the union intervenor status, noting the union's clear interest in the matter.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to re-activate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of proceedings before the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) and professional colleges.

The applicant provided evidence that the FSCO application was withdrawn following a settlement with the respondent insurer, and the college proceedings were completed.

The Tribunal granted the request to re-activate the application and directed that a preliminary/summary hearing be scheduled to determine whether the application should be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code or for having no reasonable prospect of success.

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

The respondent requested early dismissal and a summary hearing.

The applicant failed to respond to the respondent's requests and failed to comply with multiple Tribunal directions to file a completed response form.

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

The Peel District School Board requested to intervene in a human rights application alleging that the respondent discriminated against the applicant in the receipt of services.

The Board submitted that the respondent was acting in the course of his employment with the Board during the relevant time.

The Tribunal granted the request to intervene, finding that the Board had a significant interest in the outcome and could assist the Tribunal without delaying the proceeding or prejudicing the parties.

The respondent in a human rights application alleging disability discrimination requested an order allowing it to access and use the applicant's personal health information from his Occupational Health and Claims Management file.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the documents were relevant to the issues raised and necessary for the respondent to make a full answer and defence, subject to confidentiality safeguards.

The applicant filed an application alleging housing discrimination based on disability.

The parties reached a settlement at mediation, but the respondent failed to execute the settlement forms and was subsequently placed under a trusteeship pursuant to the Construction Lien Act, which stayed proceedings against it.

The applicant advised the Tribunal he was commencing a Superior Court proceeding to enforce the settlement, and the Tribunal deferred the application.

After the applicant failed to respond to multiple Tribunal requests for an update on the court proceeding, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the human rights application pending the completion of a concurrent grievance.

The applicant indicated that the grievance had been withdrawn on the advice of her union.

As the grievance was withdrawn, the Tribunal found it inappropriate to defer the application and ordered that it proceed.

The respondent requested an order to remove the personal respondents from the human rights application.

The applicant opposed the request, arguing that the personal respondents created a poisoned work environment and engaged in discriminatory behaviour.

The Tribunal applied the Persaud factors and found that the corporate respondent acknowledged the personal respondents were acting within the course of their employment and would be vicariously liable for their conduct under section 46.3(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal concluded that the corporate respondent was in the best position to remedy any alleged discrimination and that removing the personal respondents would not prejudice the applicant.

The request was granted and the personal respondents were removed.

The applicants requested an order during proceedings to amend their human rights applications to add a claim for $15,000 in general damages for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The respondents took no position on the request.

The Tribunal granted the amendment, finding no prejudice to the respondents as the applicants were not seeking to add new grounds of discrimination, new parties, or withdraw admissions.

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

A preliminary hearing was scheduled to determine if the application should be dismissed because the substance had been dealt with in an arbitration proceeding.

At the commencement of the teleconference hearing, the applicant stated she would not participate, demanded the adjudicator investigate the arbitration process, and hung up the phone.

After waiting 10 minutes for the applicant to return, the adjudicator dismissed the application as abandoned.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the hearing for over a year because its counsel was taking a pregnancy and parental leave and the respondent preferred to retain her.

The applicant opposed the lengthy delay, citing prejudice due to the passage of time, the death of a key witness, and lost records.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding that a delay of that length would not be fair, just, or expeditious, and that the respondent could assign another lawyer from the same firm to the file.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment.

A summary hearing was scheduled to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant received notice but failed to attend the teleconference hearing.

After waiting 30 minutes, the adjudicator dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed two human rights applications against the school board and individual respondents alleging discrimination on the basis of disability regarding autism programming.

The Tribunal considered whether to consolidate the applications and whether to order the applicant to provide further particulars.

The Tribunal ordered the applications consolidated to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and ordered the applicant to provide specific details of the alleged discrimination, including dates, to allow the respondents to properly prepare their response.

The applicant filed an application with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

A Notice of Hearing was sent setting dates for disclosure and production of documents.

Neither party complied with the disclosure rules.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to advise if he wished to proceed and directing the parties to comply with document requirements.

The Tribunal received no correspondence from the parties.

The application was dismissed as abandoned.

The respondent requested a two-month adjournment of the scheduled hearing, citing health issues and travel plans.

The applicant opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding that the respondent failed to provide medical documentation or establish exceptional circumstances to justify delaying the hearing, especially given the prior notice of the hearing date.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the Toronto Police Services Board, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, and various individuals, claiming a police cover-up of child abuse dating back to 1994.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the claims against the Court were barred by judicial immunity, the claims against the individuals lacked specific allegations of discrimination, and the claims against the Police Services Board were filed out of time without a good faith explanation for the delay.