HRTO 2014

The applicant alleged that his employment was terminated during his probationary period because of his colour.

The respondent brought a request for a summary hearing to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's assertion that his colour was a factor in his termination was mere speculation, as he could point to no evidence linking his termination to his colour.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested to reactivate her deferred human rights applications, add a respondent, anonymize her name, and order document production.

The Tribunal denied the request to reactivate, finding that parallel civil proceedings regarding the same underlying dispute over real estate commissions were ongoing and deferral avoided the risk of conflicting determinations.

The Tribunal also denied the request to add Bent Legal Services as a respondent, as it did not exist at the time of the alleged discrimination.

The requests for anonymization and document production were deferred.

The applicant, a former building superintendent, alleged his employment was terminated because he refused a personal relationship with the respondent, a condominium director.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the applicant had commenced a parallel civil action seeking the same remedies.

The applicant provided proof that the civil action had been discontinued.

The Tribunal held that under s. 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, the discontinuance meant the court had not finally determined the issue, allowing the human rights application to proceed.

The applicant filed a human rights application but subsequently lost contact with the Tribunal after his legal counsel withdrew.

The applicant failed to confirm his attendance at a scheduled mediation and did not respond to the Tribunal's subsequent directions to advise whether he intended to proceed.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The self-represented applicant filed a human rights application in French alleging discrimination based on citizenship and age.

He requested to add a respondent, which the Tribunal interpreted as a premature request to issue a summons for a manager to attend a hearing.

The Tribunal denied the request.

The applicant also requested that the Tribunal translate the respondent's English Response into French.

The Tribunal declined, noting it does not translate documents for parties, but granted the applicant an extension of time to file his Reply so he could seek assistance.

The applicant requested an order during proceedings to amend her human rights application by adding Ontario as a respondent and challenging the eligibility criteria of the Direct Funding program on the ground of disability.

Ontario consented to being added as a respondent on the sole issue of the program criteria.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by various insurance companies and police services.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting that the application failed to connect the respondents' alleged actions to any prohibited grounds of discrimination under the Code.

Finding it plain and obvious that the subject matter did not fall within its jurisdiction, the Tribunal dismissed the application at a preliminary stage.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability, age, and ethnic origin after the respondent university refused to lift a no-trespass order and allow her to register as a student without a forensic psychiatric assessment.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing under Rule 19A.

The applicant's treating psychiatrist, after reviewing the respondent's documents regarding the applicant's past conduct, withdrew his earlier supportive opinion and indicated ongoing health and safety concerns.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect that the applicant could establish discrimination.

The applicant filed an application under section 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 failed to respond to the NOID by the specified deadline.

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

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

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation session and subsequently failed to respond to a Tribunal direction inquiring about their intentions with respect to the application.

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.

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

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

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 as untimely.

The applicant alleged the adjudicator cut him off, misstated facts, and had preconceived biases.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was given ample opportunity to make submissions and failed to establish any criteria under Rule 26 to justify reconsideration.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant's litigation guardian requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing, initially citing personal business and later providing a vague medical note indicating an inability to work or study.

The respondents opposed the request, noting the timing and vagueness of the medical note.

The Tribunal accepted the medical documentation as establishing an inability to attend the scheduled dates and granted the adjournment, but directed the parties to schedule new dates in February 2015 and ordered the applicant to provide a witness list.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision dismissing her human rights application for delay.

She argued that she had obtained new medical records showing she was incapable of filing on time.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant failed to explain why the records could not reasonably have been obtained earlier and failed to produce the documents to show they were potentially determinative of the case.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application for delay.

He sought to introduce new documents regarding the respondent's employment status to challenge the finding that her employment ended on October 12, 2012.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the documents were available before the original hearing and, in any event, would not have altered the conclusion that the employment relationship ended on that date.

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

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

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 an application under the Human Rights Code, which was previously deferred pending a related Employment Standards Act proceeding.

The Tribunal subsequently contacted the applicant twice to inquire about the status of the related proceeding, warning that failure to respond could result in the application being dismissed for abandonment.

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

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded the application was 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 30 minutes and confirming that proper notice had been sent, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

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

The Tribunal sent multiple letters requesting dates for a rescheduled summary hearing and warning that failure to respond could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond to the correspondence.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The respondent requested reconsideration of an interim decision that denied its request to dismiss the application on the basis of timeliness.

The Tribunal held that a decision not to dismiss an application for timeliness is not a final decision, as it does not finally dispose of a claim or issue, determine the real matter in dispute, or dispose of a substantial issue between the parties.

Accordingly, the request for reconsideration was dismissed.