HRTO 2009

The applicant filed a human rights application.

The Tribunal granted the respondents a 30-day extension to file a response, which they failed to do.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondents that failure to participate could lead to orders against them without their participation.

The respondents were granted 14 days to file their responses along with an explanation for the delay.

The respondents requested an adjournment of a scheduled Case Resolution Conference on the basis that the corporate respondent's representative lived primarily in Bangladesh and the personal respondent was no longer with the company.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the reasons did not constitute exceptional circumstances as required by the Tribunal's scheduling guidelines, noting the respondents had known of the hearing date for several months.

The applicant filed a human rights application.

The respondents requested and were granted an extension of time to file their Response, but failed to do so.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondents that failure to file a Response within 7 days may result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice to them and deeming them to have accepted the allegations.

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

The Tribunal was unable to serve the application on the respondents at the address provided.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the applicant to provide correct contact information within 20 days.

After more than 50 days passed without a response from the applicant, the Tribunal dismissed the application pursuant to Rule 6.6(b), which provides that the Tribunal will not deal with an application if the respondent cannot be contacted.

The applicant alleged that his former landlord discriminated against him and harassed him on the basis of race, citizenship, and disability.

The applicant claimed the landlord used psychotronic devices, colluded with security officials, and failed to address maintenance issues.

The Tribunal found the applicant's allegations lacked credibility and were unsupported by evidence.

The application was dismissed as the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in goods, services, and facilities on the ground of sex.

The Tribunal issued two interim decisions directing the applicant to provide a mailing address for the respondents to confirm notice, warning that failure to do so would result in dismissal.

The applicant failed to communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the Windsor Police Service more than one year after the alleged incident.

The Tribunal considered whether the delay was incurred in good faith under section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued that he was emotionally traumatized, feared reprisal due to his party promotion business, and was waiting for the outcome of a university complaint.

The Tribunal rejected these explanations, noting the applicant's public statements, participation in demonstrations, and ability to continue his business and studies.

Finding no reasonable explanation for the delay, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application but subsequently failed to attend a scheduled mediation due to health reasons.

After the mediation was cancelled, the Tribunal and the applicant's counsel were unable to contact the applicant to reschedule.

The Tribunal warned that the file would be closed if no response was received.

As the applicant's counsel confirmed he could not reach his client for instructions, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in housing on the basis of disability, having previously withdrawn a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission based on the same facts.

The respondent requested early dismissal under s. 53(8) of the Human Rights Code, arguing the application was barred and could not be converted to a transitional application.

The Tribunal found that the material raised a jurisdictional issue and directed an oral hearing to determine whether the application was barred by s. 53(8) and whether the complaint was continued within the meaning of s. 53.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The respondent failed to file a Response within the required 35-day period.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent of the consequences of failing to participate, including the possibility of orders being made without their participation.

The Tribunal granted the respondent 10 days to file a Response along with an explanation for the delay.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment, goods, services, and contracts.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed or deferred pending the completion of a concurrent child protection trial.

The Tribunal exercised its discretion to defer the application until the conclusion of the civil proceeding, noting the advanced stage of the concurrent matter.

The Tribunal also ordered a publication ban and sealed the file pursuant to the Child and Family Services Act.

The respondents requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing on the basis that they had recently retained counsel who needed time to prepare.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the respondents had previously agreed to the hearing date and that late retention of counsel does not constitute exceptional circumstances justifying an adjournment under the Tribunal's scheduling guidelines.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability, more than one year after the last incident.

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

The applicant submitted that the delay was due to her belief that her union grievance would proceed to arbitration.

The Tribunal scheduled a teleconference hearing to determine whether the delay was incurred in good faith and whether substantial prejudice would result, pursuant to section 34 of the Code.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, family status, and reprisal against her employer, union, and the WSIB.

The employer and union respondents requested that the application be deferred pending the determination of outstanding grievances.

The Tribunal noted that the application did not clearly allege Code violations against the WSIB and its adjudicator.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the applicant to provide written submissions on whether she wished to continue against the WSIB respondents and on the request for deferral.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, 25 months after his employment was terminated and 20 months after his union decided not to pursue his grievance.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed for delay.

The Tribunal found that the application was filed outside the one-year time limit under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant failed to demonstrate that the delay was incurred in good faith, as he chose to pursue an internal union review rather than filing a timely application, and further delayed filing after the union review concluded.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

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

The applicant's union sought to intervene and requested that the application be deferred pending a grievance.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed for delay.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene but denied the request to defer, noting the grievance was dormant.

The Tribunal directed that an oral hearing be scheduled to determine the preliminary issue of whether the application was filed out of time under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant, who has cerebral palsy, filed a human rights application after the respondent school board revoked a conditional offer of employment as a custodian following a physical assessment.

The union representing the school board's custodians sought to intervene, arguing it had an interest in the fitness standards applied to the position.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene, finding it had a legitimate interest in the standard of fitness applied by the employer, even though the applicant was not a member of the bargaining unit.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in respect of services on the basis of disability.

After requesting an adjournment of a teleconference hearing to retain counsel, the applicant failed to respond to multiple attempts by the Tribunal to reschedule the hearing.

The Tribunal warned the applicant that failure to respond would result in dismissal.

As the applicant did not reply, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw her application filed under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondent consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant in an age discrimination case filed a Request for Order during Proceedings seeking production of the names and details of union members who accepted early retirement under a negotiated agreement.

The Tribunal refused the request, finding the documents were not arguably relevant because the program's terms were clear on their face and the requested documents would not assist in determining whether the program violated the Code.