HRTO 2014

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

The respondents requested dismissal under s. 45.1, arguing the substance had been dealt with in another proceeding.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to file submissions responding to the request to dismiss.

After the applicant failed to respond by the initial deadline, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction providing an extension and warning of potential abandonment.

The applicant failed to respond to the direction.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a request to withdraw her human rights application days before the scheduled hearing.

The respondents objected, arguing the withdrawal was an abuse of process and that the applicant should be compelled to proceed so the personal respondent could clear his name.

The Tribunal granted permission to withdraw, noting it cannot compel a party to appear and that the withdrawal achieves essentially the same result as a dismissal for abandonment, leaving the allegations unproven.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to contracts because of ancestry and family status, relating to a dispute with the respondent municipality over a road leading to her house and the state of neighbouring properties.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, finding that the application failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant's response failed to connect the respondent's behaviour to a prohibited ground of discrimination.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it plain and obvious that the subject matter did not fall within its jurisdiction.

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

The Tribunal contacted the applicant multiple times to reschedule a mediation, warning that failure to respond could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

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

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

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the application on the basis that it appeared to be outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice by the required deadline.

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

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

A summary hearing was scheduled to determine if the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant's representative requested to withdraw the application with conditions shortly before the hearing, and then advised they would not attend.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled teleconference hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking production of unredacted police reports from the Toronto Police Service (TPS) related to her allegations of discrimination and eviction by the respondent.

The TPS took no position on the request, and the respondent did not reply.

The Tribunal found the documents arguably relevant and ordered the TPS to produce the unredacted reports to the applicant.

The applicant filed a second request for reconsideration of an interim decision that denied her requests to change the hearing venue, have the Commission monitor the application, and assign a specific adjudicator.

The applicant made unprofessional and insulting comments about the adjudicators.

The Tribunal denied the request, reiterating that it does not reconsider interim decisions.

The Tribunal also directed the applicant to conduct herself with courtesy and respect, warning that failure to do so could result in the application being dismissed for abuse of process.

The applicant filed Requests for Order During Proceedings to amend his human rights application to include new incidents of alleged discrimination regarding transit services.

The respondent objected to the amendments.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the proposed amendments were timely, as the matter was still in the early stages and mediation had not yet been scheduled, and that there was no prejudice to the respondent.

The applicant filed a human rights application but failed to attend a scheduled mediation session.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to advise of his intentions and warned 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 an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal scheduled a mediation session, which the applicant failed to attend without explanation.

The Tribunal subsequently directed the applicant to advise of his intentions regarding the application, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant did not respond.

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

The applicant, who changed his name to Her Majesty the Queen, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on creed.

He claimed the respondent asked him to turn down his television volume on Victoria Day.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, finding no specific acts of discrimination.

After reviewing the applicant's submissions, the Tribunal dismissed the application, concluding it was plain and obvious that the allegations had no connection to creed and did not fall within the jurisdiction of the Human Rights Code.

The respondents requested a reconsideration of an interim decision that denied their request to dismiss the human rights application.

The respondents had argued the application was barred under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code because the applicant had commenced a civil claim for wrongful dismissal.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that there is no right to reconsider an interim decision that does not finally dispose of substantive issues, and that the respondents were merely attempting to appeal the decision and reargue their case.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, which was deferred pending the conclusion of an ongoing grievance proceeding.

After the grievance proceeding concluded, the Tribunal repeatedly directed the applicant to file a Request for an Order During Proceedings to reactivate the application.

The applicant failed to comply with the Tribunal's directions or respond to a Case Assessment Direction warning of potential dismissal.

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

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application for being filed almost four years late.

The applicant argued the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence and that other factors outweighed the public interest in finality.

The Tribunal found the applicant was attempting to re-argue his case and failed to establish any conflict with jurisprudence or other compelling factors.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to goods, services, and facilities because of marital status, claiming that members of the respondent harassed her to join their organization.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination connected to a prohibited ground.

Finding no connection between the alleged behaviour and the applicant's marital status, and no service relationship, the Tribunal dismissed the application at a preliminary stage for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, three months after the expiry of the one-year limitation period under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine if the delay was incurred in good faith pursuant to section 34(2).

The applicant argued that his learning disability and pain medication prevented him from understanding his rights and the limitation period.

The Tribunal found that ignorance of the law does not constitute good faith and that the applicant's medical evidence did not demonstrate an inability to pursue his rights, especially given his concurrent pursuit of WSIB benefits.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging systemic gender-based compensation discrimination against midwives spanning two decades.

The respondent brought a preliminary request to dismiss all allegations relating to events prior to November 27, 2012, arguing they fell outside the one-year limitation period in section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the detailed allegations of historical practices, policies, and attitudes formed an interconnected web that constituted a 'series of incidents' under section 34(1)(b), making the entire application timely.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to membership in a vocational association based on race, colour, ethnic origin, and disability.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the conclusion of its ongoing fitness to practice proceedings regarding the applicant.

The Tribunal granted the deferral, finding that the issues before the fitness to practice proceedings supported deferring the application to avoid unnecessary duplication and inconsistent decisions.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code but failed to comply with the Tribunal's Notice of Hearing and Case Assessment Direction.

The applicant did not provide the required documents, witness list, or witness statements by the specified deadlines, nor did he communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned and cancelled the scheduled hearing dates.