Sherry Liang

The Ontario Human Rights Commission requested a reconsideration of an interim decision that dismissed portions of a human rights complaint on the basis of abuse of process, as the matters had already been dealt with by the Special Education Tribunal.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the Commission failed to establish any of the threshold criteria for reconsideration under Rule 102, and that the request amounted to re-arguing issues already decided.

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

The respondents failed to file a response within the required 35-day period.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondents that failure to file a response by a specified deadline could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice to them and deeming them to have accepted the allegations.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The respondent requested early dismissal on the grounds that the applicant had filed a civil claim based on the same facts requesting a human rights remedy.

The applicant subsequently withdrew the human rights allegations from her civil claim.

The Tribunal directed the respondent to advise whether it still sought early dismissal and to file submissions or a full response accordingly.

The respondent Ministry requested to strike certain allegations from a human rights complaint filed by a former employee, citing undue delay, lack of particularity, and conclusions in the Commission's Case Analysis.

The Tribunal struck allegations regarding an unspecified job competition and excessive scrutiny due to lack of particulars and the complainant shifting the focus of the allegations.

However, the Tribunal declined to strike the remaining allegations about other job competitions, finding sufficient notice and no undue delay by the complainant.

The Tribunal directed that the complainant present evidence at the hearing to establish a prima facie case on the remaining allegations before proceeding further.

The complainant, who alleged sexual harassment and reprisal, passed away prior to the hearing.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision confirming the substitution of the new estate trustee as the representative of the complainant's estate.

Noting that much of the intended evidence appeared to be hearsay based on what the deceased complainant told others, the Tribunal directed the parties to provide submissions on the admissibility of evidence from numerous witnesses at the outset of the upcoming hearing.

The applicant filed an application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code alleging age discrimination after not being recalled to work.

The respondent's materials included a collective agreement, indicating the workplace is unionized.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision ordering the corporate respondent to provide contact information for the union so that the Tribunal could provide notice and an opportunity to seek leave to intervene.

The complainant, a student with ADHD, alleged that the school board discriminated against him by denying him access to special education accommodations.

The complainant sought to add the Ministry of Education as a respondent, arguing that the Ministry's definitions of exceptionalities and failure to assist contributed to the discrimination.

The Tribunal granted the request in part, finding that there were sufficient allegations that the Ministry's standards for exceptionalities may have acted as a barrier to accommodation, but rejected the other theories of liability.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the ground of ethnic origin regarding the termination of her employment and the handling of her Employment Standards Act claim.

The respondent requested deferral of the application pending the ESA claim's resolution, while the applicant requested a Tribunal Ordered Inquiry.

The Tribunal denied the deferral request, finding the issues distinct, and denied the inquiry request as no basis was provided.

The matter was directed to mediation.

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

The respondents requested early dismissal of the application, arguing that the subject-matter was the same as a prior complaint filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission, which had been withdrawn pursuant to Minutes of Settlement.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide submissions on whether the application is barred under section 53(8) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application and noted she had previously filed a civil lawsuit for severance pay, which she claimed was no longer ongoing.

The respondent requested early dismissal under section 34(11)(a) of the Human Rights Code, arguing the civil claim was based on the same facts and sought a human rights remedy, and requested proof that the civil action was discontinued.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide documentation confirming the discontinuance of her civil action before determining how to proceed.

In a human rights complaint, the parties raised preliminary issues regarding document disclosure, requests for particulars, and a motion to strike portions of the pleadings.

The Tribunal scheduled a half-day hearing to address all preliminary requests together and issued directions for the parties to file their respective positions and materials.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a conference call scheduled to hear preliminary issues, citing insufficient notice.

The request was unopposed and granted by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal issued directions for the rescheduled conference call, including timelines for document disclosure, case law exchange, and raising challenges to the substitute decision-maker's authority.

The applicant filed an application with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario after previously submitting a complaint to the Ontario Human Rights Commission based on the same facts.

The Commission had closed the file before formally accepting it as 'filed' because the applicant agreed to withdraw it and file directly with the Tribunal under the new transition rules.

The Tribunal held that section 53(8) of the Human Rights Code did not bar the application because the complaint was never formally 'filed' with the Commission according to its own processes.

The applicant filed a human rights application and requested an interim order preventing the respondent housing corporation from disposing of his belongings following his eviction.

The Tribunal noted that the application did not appear to allege discrimination on any protected ground under the Human Rights Code, raising a jurisdictional issue.

The Tribunal deferred ruling on the interim request and directed the applicant to provide submissions on the Tribunal's jurisdiction to hear the application and on the factors for granting an interim remedy.

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

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed due to delay and because another proceeding had appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to schedule a telephone conference call to hear submissions on the respondents' requests, specifically regarding the applicability of sections 34 and 45.1 of the Code.

The applicant filed an application with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario after previously filing and withdrawing a complaint based on the same facts with the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision seeking submissions from the parties and the Commission on whether the application is barred under section 53(8) of the Human Rights Code, which prohibits applications if the subject-matter is substantially the same as a complaint filed under the old Part IV.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code naming an individual respondent with an incorrect surname.

The corporate respondent acknowledged employing an individual with the same first name.

The Tribunal ordered the corporate respondent to provide the correct surname and contact information for the employee pursuant to Rule 1.7(p) of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure to allow the application to be properly served.

The applicant requested to expedite the hearing of her human rights application pursuant to Rule 21 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The Tribunal reviewed the written submissions from the applicant, the respondents, and the Elementary Teachers of Toronto.

Relying on previous jurisprudence, the Tribunal denied the request, finding that the circumstances were not so particularly urgent as to distinguish them from other cases before the Tribunal.

The complainant, a student with autism spectrum disorder and a developmental disability, alleged that the school board discriminated against him by failing to accommodate his disability.

The school board brought a preliminary objection, arguing that the issues raised in the human rights complaint had already been decided by the Special Education Tribunal (SET) and should be dismissed based on issue estoppel, abuse of process, and s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario found that while issue estoppel did not apply because the parties were not identical, proceeding with the complaint would be an abuse of process as it would permit re-litigation of issues already decided by the SET.

The Tribunal also found that s. 45.1 of the Code applied, as the SET proceeding appropriately dealt with the substance of the matters in dispute.

The Tribunal dismissed the portions of the complaint that had already been decided by the SET.

The complainants requested reconsideration of an interim decision that refused to add the Ministry of Education and various individuals as full party respondents to their human rights complaints regarding special education.

The Tribunal reviewed its new reconsideration powers under the amended Human Rights Code and its Rules of Procedure.

The Tribunal determined that while interim decisions disposing of central issues can be subject to reconsideration, the complainants failed to establish any new facts, conflict with established jurisprudence, or other compelling factors to justify reconsidering the original decision.

The request for reconsideration was denied.