HRTO 2010

The applicant filed a human rights application more than a year after the last alleged incident of discrimination.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to explain the delay and provide reasons why no substantial prejudice would result.

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's correspondence.

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

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing due to unforeseen work commitments and a pending request for production.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that scheduling conflicts with work do not constitute extraordinary circumstances and that a late production request cannot justify a last-minute adjournment.

The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of an interim decision that narrowed the scope of issues to be addressed at the hearing by finding some allegations out of time.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, noting that under its Rules, a reconsideration request may only be made in respect of a final decision.

Because the interim decision did not finally dispose of the rights of either party, the request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The respondents requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates, citing travel disruptions expected from the G20 Summit in Toronto and the applicant's consent due to her son's travel plans.

The Tribunal relocated the hearing to Guelph to address the G20 concerns.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, finding that the applicant's son's travel plans did not constitute exceptional circumstances and noting the request was made well beyond the five-day period following the Notice of Hearing.

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

A mediation date was cancelled because the applicant's counsel lost contact with the applicant after he moved.

The Tribunal subsequently attempted to contact the applicant without success.

After warning the applicant that failure to respond would result in the application being deemed abandoned, and receiving no response, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

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

A mediation date was cancelled because the applicant had moved and her counsel could not contact her.

After the Tribunal's subsequent attempts to contact the applicant failed, it warned that the application would be deemed abandoned if no response was received.

Having received no response, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

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

After failing to attend a scheduled mediation, the Tribunal directed the applicant to advise of her intentions regarding the application.

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's correspondence within the specified timeframe.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal on the basis of disability after his employment was terminated for refusing to undergo drug and alcohol testing.

The respondent requested early dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that a Board of Referees under the Employment Insurance Act had already determined the applicant was terminated for misconduct.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the Board of Referees expressly declined to consider the human rights issues.

The Tribunal directed the parties to provide further submissions on whether the application should be deferred pending the applicant's appeal to the Office of the Umpire.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission sought leave to intervene in multiple applications relating to the special diet allowance under Ontario Works and the Ontario Disability Support Program.

The respondent Ministry consented to the intervention.

The Tribunal waived the requirement for the Commission to file formal Requests to Intervene and granted the request conditionally, allowing any party to object within two weeks.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

The respondent failed to file a response within the required 35-day period and failed to comply with a previous interim decision directing it to provide employee information.

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

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing, providing a brief medical note stating he should be off work for two weeks.

The respondents opposed the request, noting the applicant's history of seeking delays and the insufficiency of the medical evidence.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding the medical note vague and insufficient to establish that the applicant was medically unable to attend the hearing.

The respondent requested an extension of time to implement a future compliance remedy ordered by the Tribunal regarding special diet benefits.

The government announced the elimination of the Special Diet Allowance and the creation of a new nutritional supplement program, requiring 9-12 months to implement.

The Tribunal found it had jurisdiction under its general remedial powers to extend the time limit without treating the request as a reconsideration.

The Tribunal granted the extension to April 13, 2011, finding it consistent with remedial principles to allow the government a reasonable period to implement comprehensive policy changes to achieve Code compliance.

The applicant requested an adjournment of his human rights hearing sine die pending the determination of an Application for Judicial Review he had commenced the day prior.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding the judicial review application premature as the Tribunal had not yet determined the preliminary issues raised by the respondents, including whether the adjudicator was protected by statutory or judicial immunity.

The Tribunal also found no basis to adjourn based on the Tribunal's previous refusal to add respondents' counsel as parties, or the applicant's potential civil lawsuit.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code but failed to attend a scheduled mediation.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed.

After the applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's correspondence inquiring about his intentions, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination.

The respondents raised preliminary objections, including that the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period, that the applicant's representative was unlicensed, and that the personal respondents should be removed.

The Tribunal ordered a half-day preliminary hearing to determine the issues of delay and the removal of the personal respondents.

The applicant filed an application under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code.

The parties reached a settlement and cancelled the scheduled mediation.

However, despite multiple requests from the Tribunal, the parties failed to file a Confirmation of Settlement.

After providing notice of its intent to dismiss the application as abandoned and receiving no response, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and closed the file.

The respondents requested an extension of time to file a Response, a stay of the application, and an order anonymizing the applicant.

The respondents required an extension to seek a court order under the Youth Criminal Justice Act to access police records related to the applicant, who was a minor at the material time.

The Tribunal granted the extension of time and ordered the anonymization of the applicant and his next friend, but found a stay of the application unnecessary.

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 after the Notice of Application was issued.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondents of the consequences of failing to participate under Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondents were granted a final deadline to file a response along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in goods, services, and facilities on the basis of disability and reprisal.

The applicant also filed a Request to Expedite the Application, citing a rapid decline in physical condition and the need to repair his reputation.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant provided no medical information to support the urgency, that repairing a reputation is not an urgent circumstance, and that the applicant had delayed almost one year before filing the application.

The respondents requested the early dismissal of a human rights application under section 45.1 of the Code, arguing that the substance of the application had been appropriately dealt with in a prior labour arbitration proceeding.

The arbitration had culminated in a settlement between the union and the employer, but the applicant/grievor had not accepted the settlement.

The Tribunal held that section 45.1 and the doctrine of abuse of process cannot be applied where the substance of the application was settled over the objection of the applicant.

The request for early dismissal was denied.