HRTO 2015

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

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice 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 Tribunal sent multiple letters requesting the applicant to provide dates to reschedule a hearing and confirm her intentions, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal.

The applicant failed to respond to any correspondence.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, which was initially deferred pending a civil proceeding.

The Tribunal subsequently issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to provide submissions on the respondents' request to reactivate and dismiss the application under section 45.1.

The applicant failed to respond by the deadline.

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

The applicant's father, acting as litigation guardian, filed a human rights application alleging the respondent school board failed to accommodate his daughter's learning disability.

The respondent sought to dismiss the application, arguing the issues were already addressed in a family court custody proceeding.

The Tribunal found that the father had previously consented to a family court order establishing a process to determine the applicant's educational supports and school placement.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as an abuse of process, concluding it was an impermissible collateral attack on the family court order.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex, claiming he was unfairly accused by his employer of having sex with a colleague and sexually harassing a former client.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss Application on the basis that the allegations failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Human Rights Code.

Finding that the applicant's claims related to general unfairness, libel, and defamation rather than Code-protected discrimination, the Tribunal dismissed the application as it was plain and obvious that it fell outside its jurisdiction.

The respondents requested that three consolidated human rights applications be dismissed for abuse of process.

The applicant repeatedly refused to cooperate with the Tribunal's scheduling process, failed to provide available hearing dates, and insisted on self-imposed conditions before participating.

Despite multiple warnings and opportunities to comply with Tribunal directions, the applicant continued to thwart the process.

The Tribunal found that allowing the applications to continue would constitute an abuse of process and dismissed all three applications.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sex discrimination and reprisal against the police, the OIPRD, and the Crown.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the Crown on the basis of prosecutorial immunity, finding no evidence of malicious intent or abuse of process by the Crown Attorney who withdrew the applicant's charges.

For the remaining respondents, the Tribunal scheduled a summary hearing to determine whether the allegations have a reasonable prospect of success and whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to review the OIPRD's decisions.

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

The Tribunal sent multiple communications to the applicant requesting dates to reschedule a summary hearing, warning that failure to respond could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond to any of the correspondence.

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

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates due to the recent retention of a new representative, the need to summons witnesses, and the need to transcribe handwritten notes.

The respondents opposed the request and sought an order for the applicant to provide a tabbed book of documents.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, finding that the last-minute retention of a representative did not constitute exceptional circumstances under the Tribunal's Practice Direction.

The Tribunal also ordered the applicant to deliver a tabbed book of documents to the respondents and the Tribunal.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging the respondents failed to accommodate her disability during a math exam.

In a Request for an Order During Proceedings, the applicant sought disclosure of a video relating to an alleged bullying incident on May 5, 2015.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the video was not relevant to the issues raised in the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to services based on race, colour, and ethnic origin.

The respondent failed to file a Response despite receiving a Notice of Application and a subsequent warning letter from the Tribunal.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision deeming the respondent to have accepted all allegations in the Application and waived all rights to notice or participation in the proceedings.

A case management conference call was scheduled to determine the next steps for the applicant.

The applicant requested to amend her human rights application to add Ivanhoe Cambridge Inc. as a corporate respondent, as it was the employer of the personal respondent.

The personal respondent took no position and the proposed corporate respondent did not object.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding there were allegations that could support a finding that the proposed respondent violated the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to services because of disability by the Ontario Government, related to a prior complaint about Seneca College.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction and untimely.

The Tribunal dismissed the application on a preliminary basis, finding it plain and obvious that it lacked jurisdiction because the applicant failed to identify an act of discrimination by the respondent or when it occurred.

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

The Tribunal's Registrar sent multiple communications to the applicant requesting availability for mediation and warning of potential dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant failed to respond to any of the communications.

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

The applicant, an 89-year-old woman, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability and age after falling from a stretcher while being transported by municipal paramedics.

She also alleged the respondent was intentionally delaying her related civil claim.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss and, after reviewing the applicant's submissions, dismissed the application on a preliminary basis.

The Tribunal found it plain and obvious that the application fell outside its jurisdiction, as the allegations amounted to negligence and civil delay rather than discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant, former CEO of a company that provided Shariah-compliant mortgages, filed a human rights application against the respondent credit union following his company's receivership.

He alleged discrimination based on creed regarding the calculation of a mortgage discharge for his ex-spouse's home and the respondent's continued use of mortgage documents he had prepared.

The Tribunal dismissed the application at a preliminary hearing, finding that the applicant lacked standing, the allegations had no reasonable prospect of success, and the application was filed outside the one-year time limit without a good faith explanation for the delay.

The respondent in a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and failure to accommodate brought a request for production of the applicant's medical records and resume.

The applicant did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal found that the requested documents met the threshold of arguable relevance, as they related directly to the alleged disabilities and the applicant's work experience.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to produce the medical documents and his resume.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her application based on adjudicative immunity.

The applicant argued that the respondents made the wrong decision and failed to accommodate her disability.

The Tribunal found that the documents provided by the applicant did not constitute new evidence that could not have been available at the hearing, nor did they change the fact that the Tribunal cannot sit in judgment of another tribunal's decisions.

The request for reconsideration was denied as it was an attempt to appeal the original decision.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination and harassment with respect to housing contrary to the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction seeking clarification on how the allegations related to the Code.

The applicant's concerns regarding his former residence had already been dismissed in a previous application.

His allegations regarding his current living arrangements did not include any claim of discrimination based on a Code-protected ground.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.