HRTO 2016

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant argued the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence but failed to explain how, instead repeating previous arguments and raising new ones that could have been made earlier.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, noting that reconsideration is not an appeal or an opportunity to reargue a case.

The respondents requested an order removing Kevin LaFontaine as an individual respondent to the human rights application alleging employment discrimination based on disability.

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal denied the request, finding that the individual respondent was alleged to have personally made the decision to terminate the applicant, making his individual conduct a central issue in the proceeding.

The applicant brought a human rights application against his employer.

The applicant's union sought and was granted intervenor status.

The applicant requested to preclude the union from intervening, under the mistaken impression that the union sought to represent him.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the union has an interest in the application as the bargaining agent for the applicant, and that absent exceptional circumstances, a bargaining agent will be granted intervention status.

The applicant filed Requests for Order During Proceedings (RFOP) seeking to dismiss her human rights application against the respondent condominium corporation and property management company.

The respondents agreed to the dismissal but requested that the applicant be declared a vexatious litigant to prevent future re-litigation.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to dismiss the application in its entirety, noting that this dismissal effectively prevents the applicant from re-litigating the substance of the application in the future.

The scheduled hearing was cancelled.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application against the respondents.

The applicant alleged procedural unfairness, insufficient hearing time, and adjudicator bias.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish any of the threshold criteria under Rule 26.5(c) justifying reconsideration, noting that the applicant had sufficient time to present his case and failed to provide evidence of bias or procedural conflict.

The request for reconsideration was denied.