Lisa Constantine

Ontario One Call brought a motion to dismiss Gold Rock Construction & Landscaping Inc.'s appeal of a $10,000 administrative penalty for digging without locates.

The appellant failed to pay the mandatory penalty required to pursue an appeal, failed to comply with procedural directions, and did not attend the motion hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal granted the motion, dismissed the appeal, and confirmed the administrative penalty.

The appellant, a landscaping company, appealed a $10,000 administrative penalty issued by Ontario One Call for failing to obtain a locate before excavating to replace trees.

The appellant argued the penalty was disproportionate for a low-risk manual dig and requested a reduction.

The Tribunal held that under the Ontario Underground Infrastructure Notification System Act and its Regulation, the penalty amount is fixed and cannot be varied.

The Tribunal found the penalty was warranted because the appellant had recently received a warning for a similar infraction and was aware of the requirement to obtain locates for any ground disturbance.

The appeal was dismissed.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the applicant's human rights application because the applicant had filed a parallel civil claim against the respondent and two long-term disability insurers.

The applicant opposed the deferral.

The Tribunal denied the request to defer, finding that while the factual underpinnings of the two proceedings were closely related, the legal issues were distinct and the civil claim was in its early stages.

The applicant's request to amend the damages sought was deferred to the adjudicator assigned to hear the merits of the case.

The applicant alleged discrimination based on disability regarding the calculation of his Long Term Disability benefits.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal denied the applicant's request for an interim remedy of compensation for constructive dismissal, noting the Tribunal does not award such compensation and it would be inappropriate to grant a final remedy on an interim basis.

The Tribunal also denied the applicant's request to amend his Application to include a 56-page mediation brief containing unrelated allegations, but allowed him to amend the remedy sought.

Finally, the Tribunal deferred the respondent's request to dismiss the Application under s. 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, directing the applicant to file his Amended Statement of Claim within 14 days to demonstrate he had removed his request for a human rights remedy from his concurrent civil action.

The applicant, a university student, alleged discrimination on the basis of race, colour, and ancestry, as well as reprisal, by the respondent university.

He claimed he was excluded from group projects, subjected to a racial slur by a fellow student, racially profiled by campus security, and that his grades were unfairly assessed.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence to be evasive, contradictory, and lacking credibility.

The Tribunal accepted the respondent's evidence that it had adequately and reasonably investigated and responded to the applicant's complaints.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability (drug addiction and depression) by his former employer.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed because it was filed more than one year after the last alleged incident of discrimination.

The applicant argued the delay was incurred in good faith due to his disabilities.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide medical evidence demonstrating he was so disabled that he could not file an application, noting he had published newspaper articles, podcasts, and a book during the delay period.

The application was dismissed for delay.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability after the respondent hospital failed to return her to work following a motor vehicle accident.

The application was filed up to nine years after the alleged incidents.

The applicant argued that her delay was incurred in good faith due to depression and cognitive difficulties.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable medical explanation for the delay, particularly given that she had actively pursued and settled related civil litigation during the same period.

The self-represented applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by a university professor.

Prior to the hearing, the applicant filed a request to withdraw the application after learning the Tribunal would not contact witnesses on his behalf.

The respondents objected and requested the application be dismissed for failure to establish a prima facie case and for abuse of process, citing the applicant's failure to comply with disclosure rules and Tribunal orders regarding an audiotape.

The Tribunal denied the respondents' requests, finding the allegations would establish a prima facie case if true, and that the self-represented applicant's procedural failures did not amount to an abuse of process warranting dismissal.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to withdraw.