HRTO 2009

The applicant advised the Tribunal that an earlier Interim Decision was issued prior to the receipt of his reply submissions.

The Adjudicator reviewed the reply submissions and found nothing that would alter the conclusions reached in the earlier decision refusing to add a party and amend the Application.

The matter was directed to proceed to a hearing on the merits and preliminary requests for early dismissal.

The organizational respondent, the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, requested that the human rights application against it be dismissed because the application contained no specific allegations of discrimination by the Ministry.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide written submissions clarifying whether and how the Ministry allegedly discriminated against him before determining the jurisdictional issue.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sex discrimination after being denied opportunities to train for a winter maintenance operator position.

She also filed a grievance through her union based on the same facts.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the application pending the conclusion of the grievance and arbitration process.

Finding that the grievance and application were based on the same facts and issues, the Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination based on race, colour, and ancestry against his employer and union.

The applicant subsequently requested to withdraw the application against the union.

The corporate respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the outcome of an ongoing arbitration hearing dealing with the same facts and issues.

The Tribunal conditionally allowed the withdrawal against the union and ordered the deferral of the application pending the conclusion of the grievance arbitration to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions.

The applicant requested a last-minute adjournment of a scheduled hearing because he was registered in a full-time training program.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant had known about the hearing date for months and that a scheduling conflict with a training program did not constitute exceptional circumstances warranting a late adjournment.

The applicant alleged that her former employer discriminated against her on multiple grounds, including race, sex, and age, when it terminated her employment and denied her severance pay.

At the hearing on the merits, after the applicant presented her case, the respondent requested that the application be dismissed for failing to disclose a prima facie case of discrimination.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish a nexus between her Code-protected characteristics and the termination of her employment, noting that much of her evidence was illogical or internally inconsistent.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee and in a decision of the Superior Court of Justice.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed on the basis that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to review court decisions and that judges have judicial immunity.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to file written submissions on the jurisdictional issue before proceeding to a hearing on the merits.

The applicant filed a Request to Expedite Proceedings, alleging discrimination on the basis of disability.

She argued expedition was necessary because the respondent employer was closing operations at her plant and moving out of the country, and she was experiencing financial hardship.

The respondents objected, noting the employer remained an operating entity in Ontario and the applicant had received severance and workplace injury benefits.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding the circumstances were not so particularly urgent as to distinguish the application from other cases, as the employer subsisted in the jurisdiction and financial hardship alone does not generally constitute urgency.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

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 under Rule 5.5 and granted a final extension to file a Response, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice.

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

The respondent made no submissions on the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw his human rights application against the respondent pursuant to Rule 10 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondent made no submissions.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw her human rights application against the respondent condominium corporation pursuant to Rule 10 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondent made no submissions.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

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

The respondents made no submissions on the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw their human rights application pursuant to Rule 10 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondent made no submissions on the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

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

The respondents made no submissions on the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

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

The respondents made no submissions on the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw her human rights application pursuant to Rule 10 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondent made no submissions.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

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

The respondents made no submissions on the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

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

The respondent made no submissions on the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

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

The respondents made no submissions on the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.