Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

The applicant failed to comply with pre-hearing disclosure obligations and requested an extension, citing recent surgeries.

The respondent opposed the extension and requested the Application be dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the medical documentation provided by the applicant did not support his claim that he was incapable of providing the required disclosure.

The Tribunal denied the extension request and prohibited the applicant from filing additional materials or calling witnesses.

However, the Tribunal declined to dismiss the Application, allowing it to proceed with the applicant's evidence strictly limited to the contents of his Application.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation and did not respond to a subsequent Registrar's Letter inquiring whether she intended to proceed with the application.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed an application with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to confirm his intention to appear at the scheduled hearing, warning that failure to do so could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond or communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned and canceled the scheduled hearing.

The applicant filed an application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code alleging discrimination and reprisal by the respondent.

Both parties worked for Orbis Canada.

Orbis Canada filed an unopposed Request to Intervene in the proceeding.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the employer had a significant interest in the issues, would provide assistance to the Tribunal, and its intervention would not unduly delay or prejudice the determination of the parties' rights.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Hearing and a subsequent Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to disclose documents, provide a witness list, and submit witness statements by specified deadlines.

The applicant was warned that failure to comply could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

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

As a result, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned and cancelled the scheduled hearing.

The applicants, a father and his son who is on the autism spectrum, alleged discrimination in services after being denied access to a hotel's free breakfast due to a line up and the 10:00 a.m. closure time.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the applications should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability required hearing evidence to determine if the respondent was informed of the son's disability-related needs.

The Tribunal also allowed the father's application to proceed on the grounds of association with a person with a disability and reprisal.

The applications were not dismissed and were directed to proceed to a full hearing.

The applicant filed an Employment Standards claim with the Ministry of Labour and subsequently filed a human rights Application with the Tribunal.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer, which the applicant opposed and the respondent supported.

The Tribunal found that the two proceedings raised overlapping issues, including allegations of discrimination and wrongful dismissal, creating a risk of inconsistent findings.

As the Employment Standards claim was filed earlier and was at a more advanced stage, the Tribunal ordered the deferral of the human rights Application pending the conclusion of the Ministry of Labour proceeding.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, advising that the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction due to judicial immunity.

The applicant failed to file written submissions in response to the Notice by the specified deadline.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

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

A mediation was scheduled on consent, but the applicant failed to attend.

The Tribunal subsequently wrote to the applicant requesting confirmation of her intention to proceed, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal.

The applicant did not respond by the deadline.

Consequently, the Tribunal found that the applicant had abandoned the application and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the WSIB regarding benefits for PTSD.

After previous deferrals pending WSIB and WSIAT appeals, the applicant requested reactivation, but then failed to attend the scheduled preliminary teleconference hearing.

The Tribunal noted the applicant had submitted a late request to further defer the application.

The Tribunal adjourned the preliminary hearing and ordered written submissions on the deferral request.

The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability.

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

Pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal ordered that the respondent is deemed 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 next steps.

The applicant estate filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability more than two years after the deceased employee resigned and subsequently committed suicide.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine if the application was timely.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had sufficient information within the one-year limitation period to file an application, as evidenced by communications with a former colleague and the filing of a WSIB claim based on similar allegations.

The Tribunal concluded that the delay was not incurred in good faith and dismissed the application as untimely.

The applicant filed an application alleging the respondent breached their Minutes of Settlement when he was removed from the respondent's store.

The applicant argued the settlement did not impose a lifetime ban and that a one-year ban is the industry standard.

The Tribunal found the wording of the Minutes clear and unambiguous, stating the applicant was not permitted to enter the respondent's stores 'from the date of the execution of these Minutes of Settlement forward' with no end date.

The application for contravention of settlement was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sexual solicitation or advances and sexual orientation.

A summary hearing was scheduled to determine if the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to attend the teleconference hearing despite receiving notice.

Consequently, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant, a licensed journeyman electrician, alleged that the respondent union discriminated against him on the basis of race, colour, place of origin, and citizenship when it denied his application for membership.

He also alleged reprisal.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was denied membership because of his poor performance and aggressive behaviour during his interview, not because of any discriminatory factors.

The Tribunal also found insufficient evidence to support the reprisal claim.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a Request for Interim Remedy seeking to halt her eviction, order the return of her rent deposit, and prevent further rent withdrawals.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that it was unclear whether the application had a reasonable prospect of success in establishing a Code violation.

Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the eviction process falls under the jurisdiction of the Landlord and Tenant Board, making it inappropriate for the Tribunal to intervene.

The applicant filed a request for reconsideration of a previous decision that dismissed her human rights application for delay.

The request was filed out of time.

The Tribunal considered the request but found that the applicant failed to present new facts or evidence that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier, nor did she establish that the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence or that other factors outweighed the public interest in finality.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB), alleging discrimination based on disability and age after the OLRB dismissed his duty of fair representation application and denied his request for reconsideration.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the application on the basis that it lacked jurisdiction over adjudicative decisions.

The Tribunal found that the doctrine of adjudicative immunity prohibits legal proceedings against judicial and quasi-judicial actors based on their decision-making duties.

The application was dismissed at a preliminary stage as it was plain and obvious that it fell outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant sought to amend her human rights application to add allegations of reprisal related to events that occurred after she began her maternity leave.

The respondents opposed the request, arguing it was untimely, prejudicial, and included privileged settlement communications.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, finding that the new allegations related to continuing exchanges between the parties and would not require additional witnesses, thus causing no prejudice to the respondents despite the late stage of the proceeding.

The respondent requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found the applicant's manager made discriminatory comments based on her Indigenous heritage and that her race was a factor in her termination.

The respondent argued the Tribunal made errors in law, incorrectly applied the pre-judgment interest rate, and erred in its credibility findings.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding the respondent was attempting to re-argue its case, but corrected a transcription error regarding the pre-judgment interest rate.