Final order issued on consent requiring respondents to pay $7,500 pursuant to Minutes of Settlement.
The parties made a joint request for a final order pursuant to section 45.9(2) of the Human Rights Code.
The Tribunal ordered the respondents to pay the applicant $7,500 in accordance with the Minutes of Settlement, and required the execution of a full and final release and a mutual non-disparagement agreement.
Request for reconsideration dismissed; change of adjudicator and newly found witnesses did not meet criteria.
The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application.
He argued that the adjudicator at the hearing was different from the one who conducted the pre-hearing case assessment, and that he had found new witnesses.
The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that a change in adjudicator is not a ground for reconsideration and that the applicant failed to establish that the new witness evidence could not reasonably have been obtained earlier.
Request for reconsideration dismissed as it merely disagreed with the original decision and lacked determinative new evidence.
The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision dismissing her human rights applications against the school board and individual respondents.
The request was made more than 30 days after the final decision.
The Tribunal found that the new information provided by the applicant would not be determinative of the issues and that her other arguments merely disagreed with the original decision's reasoning.
The request for reconsideration was dismissed as it did not meet the criteria under Rule 26.5.
Reconsideration request dismissed as respondents failed to present determinative new evidence.
The respondents requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that allowed the application against them.
They argued that the Human Rights Legal Support Centre unfairly provided support only to the applicant and sought to introduce new facts about the applicant's background.
The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the new facts were irrelevant, could have been obtained earlier, and that the HRLSC is a separate agency whose services do not form a ground for reconsidering a decision.
Reconsideration of administrative closure denied; applicant may file a new application and argue good faith delay.
The applicant sought reconsideration of the Registrar's administrative closure of his human rights application.
The application was closed because it did not identify a respondent and the applicant failed to respond to a Notice of Incomplete Application, allegedly due to a postal code error.
The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding it unnecessary because the administrative closure was not a final decision.
The applicant remains free to file a new application and argue that his delay was incurred in good faith.
Tribunal dismisses most special diet allowance claims but grants retroactive benefits for Prader-Willi syndrome and renal failure.
The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario considered the claims of 17 individuals alleging that the special diet allowance schedule under Ontario's social assistance system discriminated against them based on disability.
The claimants argued that the schedule failed to fund or underfunded special diets for 11 different medical conditions.
Applying the four-part test from Ball v. Ontario, the Tribunal dismissed the majority of the claims, finding that the claimants failed to establish that their conditions required modifications to a regular healthy diet, that the diets led to additional costs, or that the medical community generally recognized the need for such diets.
However, the Tribunal allowed the claims for Prader-Willi syndrome and unintended weight loss due to renal failure, as the respondent conceded these conditions met the Ball test.
The Tribunal ordered retroactive benefits for these two conditions, rejecting the respondent's argument that the recognition of Prader-Willi syndrome constituted a substantial change in the law that would preclude retroactive relief.
Request to defer human rights application pending reconsideration of a related matter refused to ensure expeditious resolution.
The applicant requested to defer her human rights application regarding disability accommodation pending the outcome of a reconsideration request and potential judicial review of a related, previously dismissed application concerning workplace harassment.
The Tribunal refused the request to defer, finding that the issues in the two applications were distinct and emphasizing the need to resolve the matter expeditiously given the age of the allegations and the ongoing conflict between the parties.
Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to hear age discrimination claim regarding driver's license testing due to valid statutory exemption.
The applicant, an 84-year-old driver, sought to challenge the requirement under O. Reg. 340/94 that drivers over 80 pass an examination every two years, alleging age discrimination.
Section 19 of the regulation, enacted pursuant to s. 47(2) of the Human Rights Code, explicitly exempts these licensing requirements from the Code.
The applicant argued this exemption violated his equality rights under s. 15(1) of the Charter.
The Tribunal held it lacked jurisdiction to consider the constitutionality of the licensing requirement as a stand-alone issue.
Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the statutory exemption itself did not violate s. 15(1) of the Charter, as it did not perpetuate disadvantage but merely required such challenges to be brought before the courts under the Charter rather than the Tribunal under the Code.
The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Reconsideration granted to reinstate abandoned application due to exceptional circumstances including Tribunal administrative error.
The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application as abandoned after he failed to disclose arguably relevant documents.
The applicant claimed he did not receive the first Case Assessment Direction sent by e-mail and did not check his e-mail for the second due to the birth of a child.
The Tribunal granted the reconsideration request, finding that exceptional circumstances, including an administrative error by the Tribunal and the applicant's continued desire to pursue the application, outweighed the public interest in finality.
Human rights application dismissed; content of academic papers does not constitute a service under the Code.
The applicant, a student, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to services based on the content of an academic paper presented at a university philosophy club conference.
The paper allegedly contained racist and offensive statements.
The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.
The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the content of academic papers and the university's response to complaints about them do not fall within the meaning of 'services' under section 1 of the Human Rights Code, as the Code is not intended to regulate academic discourse or restrict freedom of expression and academic freedom.
Ontario Human Rights Commission entitled to intervene as of right even if application may be moot.
The applicant filed a human rights application related to child protection proceedings and funding for services.
After the respondent Ministry granted funding for a year and the Society agreed to withdraw the child protection application, the Ontario Human Rights Commission sought to intervene.
The respondent argued the application was moot and opposed the intervention.
The Tribunal ruled that the Commission is entitled to intervene as of right under s. 37(2) of the Human Rights Code, regardless of whether the application is moot.
The Tribunal also revoked the order expediting the application and set a schedule to hear arguments on mootness.
Human rights complaint withdrawn with leave of the Tribunal.
The complainant requested to withdraw the human rights complaint.
The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario granted leave and the complaint was withdrawn.
Adjournment request denied despite consent; family function did not constitute exceptional circumstances.
The respondents requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because their representative would be out of the country attending a family function.
The applicant consented to the request.
The Tribunal denied the adjournment, noting that requests made outside the 14-day rescheduling period require exceptional circumstances.
The respondents failed to explain why the family function constituted an exceptional circumstance, why another representative could not attend, or why the request was not made earlier.
Interim remedy granted requiring school board to temporarily relocate bus stop to accommodate parent's disability.
The applicant, a mother with a permanent spinal cord injury, sought an interim remedy requiring the school board to add a temporary bus stop closer to her home for her two children.
The school board's policy only accommodated children's disabilities, not parents'.
The Tribunal found the application had merit, noting the harm to the children missing school outweighed the speculative harm to the respondents.
The Tribunal granted the interim remedy, ordering the respondents to provide a bus stop near the applicants' residence until the mother obtained a mobility scooter or a final decision was reached.
Request to expedite human rights application granted due to urgent risk of losing parent-child relationship.
The applicant, a child with complex disabilities, alleged that the Ministry's funding regime discriminated against him based on disability and family status, potentially forcing his grandmother to give up custody to obtain necessary treatment.
The applicant requested to expedite the Tribunal proceedings.
The Ministry opposed, arguing the matter should be deferred pending a related child protection proceeding.
The Tribunal declined to defer, noting the child protection proceeding would not address the human rights allegations.
The Tribunal granted the request to expedite, finding the circumstances truly urgent given the potential loss of treatment or the parent-child relationship.
Request for separate summary hearings denied; identical applications consolidated for efficiency.
The applicants requested that their two human rights applications, which involved identical medical evidence, be dealt with in separate summary hearings.
The Tribunal had previously directed that the summary hearings be consolidated.
The applicants' next friend objected to the consolidation.
The Tribunal held that under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, it has the power to consolidate hearings even without the parties' consent.
The request for separate hearings was denied and the summary hearings were ordered to proceed together.
The complainant sought to withdraw their human rights complaint against the respondent.
The complainant sought to withdraw his human rights complaint against the Ministry of Community and Social Services.
The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario granted leave to withdraw the complaint.
Reconsideration granted where Tribunal error resulted in unequal treatment of parties regarding failure to attend.
The applicant sought reconsideration of a Tribunal decision dismissing her application as abandoned after she failed to attend a teleconference summary hearing.
The applicant argued she was treated differently from the respondent, as the Tribunal had previously contacted the respondent's counsel when he failed to attend a hearing, but did not contact the applicant when she failed to attend.
The Tribunal acknowledged its errors and found that the need to ensure both parties are treated similarly outweighed the public interest in finality.
The request for reconsideration was granted and a new summary hearing was ordered.
Late adjournment request denied as reconsideration of policy is not an extraordinary circumstance.
The respondent requested an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for four days later, stating it intended to reconsider the policy at issue following submissions by an intervenor.
The Tribunal denied the request, noting its practice direction that adjournments are only granted in extraordinary circumstances and not simply because parties wish to explore settlement or reconsider their positions.