HRTO 2010

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

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The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.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The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.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 human rights application pursuant to Rule 10 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondent consented to 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The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.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 respondents made no submissions on the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw the 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The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.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 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The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.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The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.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 filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex (pregnancy/maternity leave) against the Consulate General of Barbados and Invest Barbados.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that the respondent appeared to be a sovereign nation outside its jurisdiction.

Although the applicant did not file submissions, the Tribunal concluded it was not plain and obvious that it lacked jurisdiction, noting the Code does not explicitly exempt consulates and the exact nature of the employer entity was unclear.

The Tribunal directed that the application be served on the respondents, who may then raise jurisdictional objections.

The applicant, who alleges discrimination based on ethnic and place of origin regarding the assessment of her Russian legal credentials, brought requests for the production of various documents from the respondent National Committee on Accreditation.

The requested documents included applications, evaluation forms, and meeting minutes from 2003 and 2004.

The Tribunal denied the requests, finding them overbroad and not arguably relevant to the core issue of whether the applicant's specific application was assessed discriminatorily because she is from Russia.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the City of Windsor, which named the applicant's union as an additional respondent.

The union failed to file a response within the required timeframe.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the grounds of disability and age.

The respondent employer and union requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the completion of a related grievance process scheduled for arbitration.

The Tribunal found that the grievance raised the same facts and human rights issues as the application.

In accordance with its normal approach to concurrent proceedings, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process.

The applicant and respondents both filed Requests for Order During Proceedings to amend the pleadings.

The parties agreed that Charlene Linzon was named as a personal respondent in error and that the allegations actually related to Perla Lansang.

The Tribunal granted the requests, removing Linzon and adding Lansang as a personal respondent, and directed the matter to mediation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of 'record of offences' after being dismissed upon returning from a sick day.

The Tribunal previously issued an interim decision finding that the application did not disclose a claim on that ground, as the applicant did not assert having any conviction.

The Tribunal provided the applicant an opportunity to amend the application to cite a different ground, such as disability.

The applicant failed to seek an amendment or communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw their human rights application filed under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, 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 Wal-Mart Canada Corp. The respondent 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 against Wal-Mart Canada Corp. 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 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 the Application filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, pursuant to Rule 10 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondents made no submissions.

The Tribunal granted leave and the Application was withdrawn.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw her human rights application against the Canadian Union of Public Employees – Ontario Division.

The respondent made no submissions.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw their human rights application against the Toronto Police Service and other respondents pursuant to Rule 10 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondents made no submissions.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.