HRTO 2014

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the human rights application pending the outcome of a judicial review proceeding in a different case (de Lottinville).

The Tribunal noted its consistent practice of denying requests to defer applications pending the completion of the de Lottinville judicial review in similar circumstances.

Finding no reasons to depart from this practice, the Tribunal denied the respondents' deferral request.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of reprisal.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the allegations did not appear to relate to reprisal under the Code.

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

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

The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application at a summary hearing.

The applicant argued that there were new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant was attempting to reargue the application and failed to demonstrate any new facts or evidence that could not have been obtained earlier.

The complainant alleged discrimination based on disability regarding the special diet allowance under Ontario's social assistance system.

The Tribunal directed the complainant to provide materials and submissions in support of her remaining claim regarding mental health by a specified date, warning that failure to do so would result in the claim being dismissed as abandoned.

The complainant failed to file any materials or communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the remaining claims as abandoned.

The complainant alleged discrimination based on disability regarding the special diet allowance under Ontario's social assistance system.

The Tribunal directed the complainant to provide materials supporting her remaining claims for fibromyalgia and multiple chemical sensitivities by a specified date, warning that failure to do so would result in dismissal for abandonment.

The complainant failed to file any materials or communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the remaining claims were dismissed as abandoned.

The complainant alleged discrimination because of disability regarding the special diet allowance under Ontario's social assistance system.

The Tribunal directed the complainant to provide materials supporting her remaining claims for food allergies and multiple chemical sensitivities by a specified date, warning that failure to do so would result in dismissal for abandonment.

The complainant failed to file any materials or communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the remaining claims were dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability regarding the special diet allowance under Ontario's social assistance system.

The Tribunal previously directed the applicant to file materials supporting his claim concerning an egg allergy, warning that failure to comply would result in that portion of the claim being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to file the required materials or communicate with the Tribunal.

Accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed the egg allergy claim as abandoned, while noting the applicant's separate claim regarding cardiovascular disease remains active.

The applicant alleged discrimination based on disability regarding the special diet allowance under Ontario's social assistance system.

The Tribunal previously directed the applicant to provide materials supporting his claims for digestive problems, insomnia, panic attacks, and PTSD, warning that failure to do so would result in dismissal.

The applicant failed to file any materials or communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed these claims as abandoned and directed the parties to provide an update on the remaining claim regarding hepatitis C.

The complainant alleged discrimination based on disability regarding the special diet allowance under Ontario's social assistance system.

The Tribunal previously directed the complainant to provide materials supporting his claims for several specific medical conditions, warning that failure to do so would result in those claims being dismissed as abandoned.

The complainant failed to file any materials or communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the claims related to those specific conditions as abandoned, while noting the claim regarding cardiovascular disease remains unaffected.

The complainant alleged discrimination because of disability in the special diet allowance provided under Ontario's social assistance system.

The Tribunal directed the complainant to provide materials supporting his claims regarding unintended weight loss and schizophrenia by a specified date, warning that failure to do so would result in dismissal.

The complainant failed to file any materials or communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed those specific claims as abandoned, while preserving the complainant's claim regarding osteoporosis.

The complainant alleged discrimination based on disability regarding the special diet allowance under Ontario's social assistance system.

The Tribunal previously directed the complainant to provide materials supporting his claims for several specific medical conditions, warning that failure to do so would result in those claims being dismissed as abandoned.

The complainant failed to file any materials or communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the claims related to those specific conditions as abandoned, while preserving the claim regarding a wheat allergy.

The complainant alleged discrimination based on disability regarding the special diet allowance under Ontario's social assistance system.

The Tribunal previously directed the complainant to provide materials supporting his claim for unintended weight loss.

The complainant failed to file any materials or communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the claim regarding unintended weight loss as abandoned.

The remaining claim relates to cardiovascular disease.

The complainant alleged discrimination based on disability regarding the special diet allowance under Ontario's social assistance system.

The Tribunal previously directed the complainant to provide materials supporting his claims for anaemia, emphysema, and malabsorption, warning that failure to do so would result in dismissal.

The complainant failed to file any materials or communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed those specific claims as abandoned, while noting the claims regarding hepatic disorder and osteoporosis remain unaffected.

The complainant alleged discrimination based on disability regarding the special diet allowance under Ontario's social assistance system.

The Tribunal previously directed the complainant to provide materials supporting his claims for unintended weight loss (anorexia and marasmus/kwashiorkor) by a specified date, warning that failure to do so would result in dismissal of those claims.

The complainant failed to file the materials or communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed those specific claims as abandoned, while noting the claim regarding diabetes remains unaffected.

The complainant alleged discrimination based on disability regarding the special diet allowance under Ontario's social assistance system.

The Tribunal previously directed the complainant to provide materials supporting her claims for specific conditions by a set deadline, warning that failure to do so would result in those claims being dismissed as abandoned.

The complainant failed to file any materials or communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the claims related to bipolar disorder, food allergies-antibiotics, multiple chemical sensitivities, and pseudo-Cushing's syndrome as abandoned, while preserving her claims regarding milk and wheat allergies.

The applicant, a part-time university professor, alleged that his teaching contracts were terminated based on his race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, and creed.

The respondent university maintained that the termination was due to numerous student complaints regarding the applicant's teaching and his failure to meet teaching standards.

Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal found no direct or circumstantial evidence linking the termination to any protected grounds under the Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to confirm his attendance at the scheduled hearing by a specified date.

The applicant failed to communicate with the Tribunal or confirm his attendance.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded the applicant decided not to pursue the matter and dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to disclose arguably relevant documents by a specified deadline, warning that failure to do so could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to comply with the direction.

The Tribunal concluded that the application was abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicants requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed their applications for lack of jurisdiction and public interest standing.

The applicants argued the decision was patently unreasonable and ignored Supreme Court of Canada guidance on public interest standing.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicants were attempting to re-argue their case and failed to establish any exceptional circumstances or conflict with established jurisprudence that would warrant reconsideration.

The applicant, a student living in a university apartment, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability, age, and reprisal after he was apprehended by police under the Mental Health Act, issued a trespass notice by the university, and later charged with criminal harassment.

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

The allegations regarding the police apprehension did not involve the university, the complaint regarding the trespass notice was filed outside the one-year limitation period without a good faith explanation for the delay, and the allegations regarding the university providing information for a Form 2 did not fall within a protected social area under the Code.