Luke J. Saites

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing based on race, colour, ethnic origin, marital status, and age.

The respondents argued that allegations of incidents occurring more than one year prior to the application date should be dismissed for delay.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine its jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that the earlier incidents, which involved the respondents' alleged failure to properly investigate and respond to the applicant's complaints of harassment, shared a sufficient nexus with the timely incidents to constitute a 'series of incidents' under section 34(1)(b) of the Human Rights Code.

Consequently, the Tribunal retained jurisdiction over the earlier allegations, and the application was permitted to proceed.

The respondents brought a Request for Order During Proceedings to dismiss the human rights application, arguing it was filed past the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the one-year deadline fell on a Saturday, and the following Monday was a statutory holiday.

Because the application was received on the next business day, the Tribunal held that the application was timely.

The respondents' request to dismiss the application was denied.

The applicant was injured in a motorcycle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant suffered a complete inability to engage in any employment for which he was reasonably suited, entitling him to a post-104 week income replacement benefit.

The Tribunal also determined the applicant sustained a catastrophic impairment, as his combined physical, neurocognitive, and mental/behavioural impairments met the 55% whole person impairment threshold under the AMA Guides.

However, the applicant's claims for specific medical and rehabilitation benefits were dismissed for lack of evidence proving they were reasonable and necessary.

The applicants sought a declaration that their insurers had a duty to defend and indemnify them in an underlying tort action, along with punitive damages and costs.

The insurers eventually acknowledged the duty to defend and indemnify for reasonable legal fees.

The court found the declaration issue moot due to the insurers' acknowledgment, assessed the reasonable costs for both the tort defence and the coverage dispute, and dismissed the claim for punitive damages, finding the insurers' conduct did not meet the high threshold for such an award.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her action against her former co-operative housing provider, its lawyers, a court employee, and a Landlord and Tenant Board member.

The motion judge had dismissed the action under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding the action was an attempt to re-litigate her eviction and rent subsidy proceedings, and that the claims against the lawyers, court employee, and Board member were bound to fail due to lack of duty of care and statutory immunity.

The applicants filed applications alleging a breach of the confidentiality term of a previous settlement.

The Tribunal scheduled a preliminary hearing by telephone.

The respondent attended, but the applicants did not.

After waiting 30 minutes, the Tribunal dismissed the applications as abandoned due to the applicants' non-attendance.

The applicant, a member of a housing co-operative, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal after receiving Notices to Appear regarding the potential termination of her membership and occupancy rights, and the subsequent removal of her housing subsidy.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant provided no evidence linking the respondents' actions to her disability, nor any evidence to counter the respondents' position that the subsidy was removed for legitimate reasons (failure to provide required income verification).

The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled summary hearing for medical reasons, providing documentation that her condition had worsened and self-representation was unmanageable.

The respondent opposed the request.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that the medical documentation established extraordinary circumstances justifying the request outside the standard 14-day period.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled summary hearing because she had recently retained counsel who had a scheduling conflict.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the applicant had previously agreed to the hearing date and that retaining counsel after a hearing is scheduled does not constitute an extraordinary circumstance justifying an adjournment.

Following the discontinuance of the plaintiffs' action, the court determined the costs payable to the defendants.

The plaintiffs had sought to discontinue the action without costs, which was denied.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the defendants for both the action and the motion, noting the plaintiffs' reprehensible conduct in continuing the action against personal defendants despite admitting it was commenced in error.

The plaintiffs were ordered to pay a total of $53,250 in costs to the various defendants.

The applicant, a resident of a housing co-operative, alleged discrimination on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, and receipt of public assistance, claiming the respondents used another member to harass her and issued unwarranted eviction notices.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal found no evidence linking the respondents' actions to the applicant's race and determined that most of the allegations were out of time.

The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant, a former member of the respondent housing co-operative, alleged discrimination on the basis of race, colour, disability, family status, and association.

Following an earlier interim decision that dismissed allegations regarding subsidy calculations, the remaining issue concerned whether the applicant experienced discriminatory differential treatment regarding repair requests.

At a summary hearing, the Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide particularized witness statements or any evidence linking the alleged repair delays to prohibited Code grounds.

The application was dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant, a member of a housing co-operative, alleged discrimination in accommodation based on ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, disability, and sexual orientation.

He claimed he faced harassment from neighbours and management, and was denied a rent subsidy.

At the hearing, the applicant admitted he had no evidence or witnesses to link the alleged adverse treatment to any protected grounds under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found the application had no reasonable prospect of success and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to housing by her housing cooperative and its representatives.

A summary hearing was scheduled to determine if the application should be dismissed because its subject matter had been dealt with in Superior Court proceedings or had no reasonable prospect of success.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the application due to the applicant's failure to appear and prosecute her case, noting the significant resources already expended by the respondents and the Tribunal.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application as abandoned.

The applicant explained that she did not receive the Tribunal's correspondence because her housing unit's buzzer was malfunctioning, an issue she alleged was part of the discrimination she faced.

The Tribunal granted the reconsideration request, finding that the applicant did not receive notice through no fault of her own and did not intend to abandon the application.

The Tribunal also ordered a summary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success or because it was appropriately dealt with in eviction proceedings before the Superior Court.

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

A preliminary hearing conference call was scheduled to hear submissions on whether the remaining allegations should be dismissed.

The applicant was provided with proper notice of the hearing but failed to attend or communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant alleged discrimination by his housing cooperative based on ethnic origin, creed, family status, and pregnancy, as well as reprisal, following his eviction and reports made to the Children's Aid Society.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations based on ethnic origin, creed, pregnancy, and reprisal, finding no reasonable prospect the applicant could establish a link between the cooperative's actions and the Code grounds.

The allegation of discrimination based on family status regarding the eviction was allowed to continue, subject to a further hearing on whether the application should be dismissed due to a related civil proceeding.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of ethnic origin, claiming she was terminated after someone else punched her time card while she was absent.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found no evidence connecting the applicant's termination or the time card incident to her ethnic origin, concluding the allegations were purely speculative.

The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant filed 14 separate human rights applications against various respondents, alleging discrimination on multiple grounds.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the majority of the applications, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate good faith for the delay or failed to plead facts that could reasonably lead to a finding of discrimination.

Portions of the applications against Ryerson University, the Toronto Catholic District School Board, and Metroland were permitted to proceed, with the applicant ordered to provide further particulars.

The applicant alleged discrimination in services on the basis of family status after the respondents expelled her three children from their child care centre.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's allegations regarding subsidized daycare costs and safety concerns did not relate to her family status, which is defined as being in a parent and child relationship.

As the applicant failed to establish a link between the respondents' actions and her family status, the application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.