HRTO 2011

The applicant filed a human rights application but subsequently failed to respond to communications from the respondent and the Tribunal regarding the scheduling of mediation.

The Tribunal warned the applicant that failure to respond could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

As the applicant did not respond to the Tribunal's directions, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed or adjourned because the applicant failed to file adequate witness statements in compliance with the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss, ordering that the hearing proceed and the applicant be permitted to testify.

However, the Tribunal directed the applicant to file amended witness statements for her other witnesses by a strict deadline, failing which she may not be permitted to adduce their evidence.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

The respondent failed to file a Response by the deadline set in the Notice of Application.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent of the consequences of failing to participate under Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, and granted the respondent a final 10 days to file a Response along with an explanation for the delay.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The respondent requested deferral pending the outcome of a related WSIB claim.

The Tribunal issued two interim decisions directing the applicant to file documents regarding the status of the WSIB matter.

The applicant failed to provide the requested documents within the specified timeframes.

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

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

A hearing was scheduled, but the applicant failed to attend.

After waiting the customary period and confirming that notice of the hearing was properly sent, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

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

The respondent requested dismissal, arguing that a civil action and a grievance had already dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, noting no civil action existed and the grievance was withdrawn without resolving the issues.

The respondent also requested deferral pending an ongoing grievance regarding job vacancies, which the Tribunal denied because it was unclear if the grievance covered the broader accommodation issues raised in the application.

The Power Workers' Union was granted intervenor status due to its interest in potential remedies affecting bargaining unit members.

Three applicants filed human rights applications alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment against the same respondents.

The respondents requested that the applications be consolidated or heard together.

Two of the applicants also requested to amend their applications to include a new reprisal allegation regarding the termination of their employment.

The Tribunal ordered that the three applications be heard together to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings, and granted the requests to amend the applications as there was no apparent prejudice to the respondents.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability after the Ministry of Transportation downgraded his commercial driver's licence due to a heart condition.

The applicant had previously filed an identical application in 2008, which was dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code because the Licence Appeal Tribunal had already appropriately dealt with the substance of the matter.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the current application was barred by res judicata.

Finding that the same issues were raised, the previous decision was final, and the parties were identical, the Tribunal dismissed the application as barred by the doctrine of res judicata.

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

The respondent failed to file a Response by the deadline.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent of the consequences of failing to respond under Rule 5.5 and granting the respondent 10 days to file a Response with an explanation for the delay.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) on the basis that the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant was directed to respond within 30 days but failed to do so.

As a result, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

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

The Tribunal sent multiple communications directing the applicant to advise of her intentions regarding the application, warning that failure to respond could result in abandonment.

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

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

The applicant, a resident of a co-operative apartment, filed a human rights application alleging harassment on the basis of being a 'single Caucasian woman' and reprisal.

She claimed that the respondents failed to address her complaints about a neighbour's loud music and colluded to have her charged with criminal harassment.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to allege facts linking the respondents' conduct to a prohibited ground, and her noise complaints did not constitute claiming or enforcing rights under the Code.

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

After failing to attend a scheduled mediation session, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant directing her to advise of her intentions and warning that failure to respond could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant did not respond.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed two human rights applications alleging discrimination in employment.

The corporate respondent was dissolved under bankruptcy.

The applicant's counsel withdrew because she could not locate the applicant.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide current contact information and advise of her intentions, warning that failure to do so would result in the applications being deemed abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond.

The Tribunal dismissed the applications as abandoned.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be deferred pending the conclusion of criminal proceedings against the applicant.

The Tribunal noted that there was substantial overlap between the facts relevant to the application and those in the criminal charges.

To avoid concurrent proceedings and the possibility of inconsistent decisions, the Tribunal exercised its discretion to defer the application until the criminal proceeding is completed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the Law Society of Upper Canada and a Complaints Resolution Commissioner in their handling and dismissal of her complaint against her former criminal defence lawyer.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

Finding that the applicant provided only bare allegations and no evidence linking the respondents' actions to a prohibited ground of discrimination, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

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

Counsel for the applicant subsequently advised the Tribunal that the applicant intended to withdraw the application.

Despite multiple inquiries from the Tribunal over several months requesting confirmation of the withdrawal or instructions to proceed, neither the applicant nor his counsel responded.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application which was deferred pending the conclusion of ongoing grievance proceedings.

The Tribunal subsequently wrote to the applicant requesting an update on the grievance proceedings and warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal.

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

Consequently, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous decision that dismissed his applications against his union and school board for lack of a prima facie case.

The applicant argued that the adjudicator failed to appropriately consider his audio recordings and witness testimony, and raised allegations of bias and perjury.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was merely attempting to re-argue evidence already considered and failed to present any new facts or establish any criteria under Rule 25.5.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

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

The respondent filed a Request for Early Dismissal on the basis that the issues were within exclusive federal jurisdiction.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to file a response by a specified date, warning that failure to do so could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.