Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

The respondent requested to set aside the reactivation of a human rights application, arguing that a related grievance proceeding was still ongoing.

The applicant opposed the deferral, stating he had not consented to the union proceeding further with the grievance.

The Tribunal found that the grievance was still outstanding and deferred the application pending its conclusion, noting the applicant must provide written confirmation if the grievance is withdrawn.

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 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 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.

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 applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in goods and services against the Cleveland Indians Baseball Company Limited Partnership.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application did not indicate discrimination on the basis of any enumerated grounds.

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

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

The applicant filed two Requests for Orders During Proceedings (RFOP) seeking the production of documents and an order precluding the respondent from asserting an undue hardship defence or presenting evidence on alternative programs.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to provide particulars on its defences and the comparative costs of home care versus institutionalization.

However, the Tribunal declined to order the production of 2015 Cabinet documents, finding them not arguably relevant at this stage, and refused to restrict the respondent's defences, noting that the summary hearing process cannot be used to strike a response.

The respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking the production of records related to the applicant's prior work experience.

The applicant opposed the Request.

The Tribunal found the applicant's prior experience arguably relevant to the reasons for his dismissal, as he asserted having 25 years of sales experience in his reply and witness statement.

The Tribunal granted the Request in part, ordering the applicant to provide a resume of his prior sales experience with contact information.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment because of sex and sexual solicitation.

The individual respondent failed to file a Response despite receiving multiple notices and warnings from the Tribunal.

Applying Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal issued an interim decision deeming the individual respondent to have accepted all allegations in the Application and waived all rights to further notice or participation in the proceedings.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application as untimely.

The original decision found that the last incident of alleged discrimination occurred more than a year before the application was filed and that the applicant failed to provide a good faith reason for the delay.

The applicant submitted medical notes and letters in support of his reconsideration request but provided no written submissions.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the materials did not alter the conclusions regarding untimeliness or provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, and thus the applicant failed to meet the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

The applicant requested to reactivate her deferred human rights application after an arbitrator dismissed her related employment grievances.

The respondent opposed reactivation until the arbitrator released comprehensive reasons, and alternatively requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal granted the request to reactivate the application to avoid further delay, and directed that a preliminary hearing be scheduled to determine whether the application should be dismissed under section 45.1.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to reactivate her deferred human rights application, citing new incidents of alleged discrimination.

The respondent opposed the request, noting that the upcoming grievance arbitration would address the ongoing issues through consolidated grievances.

The Tribunal found it inappropriate to reactivate the application, as the new issues would be addressed in the grievance process, and ordered that the application remain deferred until the arbitration concluded.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination based on race, ethnic origin, and age under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the resolution of a related grievance.

After the Tribunal sent multiple letters inquiring about the status of the other proceeding and warning of potential dismissal, the applicant failed to respond.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

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

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

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice within the required time.

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 the application on the basis that it appeared to be outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice and a subsequent follow-up email by the specified deadlines.

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

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

The Tribunal had previously deferred the application pending the conclusion of ongoing court proceedings.

The Tribunal subsequently attempted to contact the applicant to inquire about the status of the court proceedings, but the communications were returned as undeliverable or went unanswered.

The applicant also failed to update his contact information as required by the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

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 his intentions with respect to the application.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging wrongful termination due to a work-related illness and workplace complaints.

The applicant's union had previously filed a grievance on similar grounds, which was settled for a lump sum payment equal to 28 weeks of pay.

Although the applicant did not sign the Minutes of Settlement, he cashed the settlement cheque.

The Tribunal held that cashing the cheque constituted implicit acceptance of the settlement.

The application was dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code as its substance had been appropriately dealt with in the grievance proceeding.

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 was directed to respond but failed to do so.

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