Request to dismiss human rights application denied; prior ESA settlement did not address discrimination allegations.
The respondent requested that the human rights application alleging disability discrimination be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.
The respondent argued that the applicant's prior Employment Standards Act claim for termination and vacation pay, which was settled, appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.
The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the ESA proceedings addressed statutory entitlements and did not deal with the substance of the discrimination allegations regarding the reduction of hours and dismissal.
Human rights application held in abeyance for one year due to respondent's CCAA insolvency proceedings.
The parties settled the human rights application, but the respondent was subsequently placed under court protection pursuant to the Companies Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA).
As the settlement terms could not be implemented, the applicant requested that the matter be held in abeyance.
The Tribunal granted the request, ordering that no further steps be taken for up to one year pending resolution of the CCAA proceedings.
Tribunal reconsiders dismissal and schedules hearing after discovering OHRC had approved the settlement.
The Tribunal reconsidered its previous decision dismissing the application for lack of jurisdiction.
The previous decision was based on the mistaken belief that the Ontario Human Rights Commission had not approved the settlement.
The Commission had in fact approved the settlement, but the correspondence was misplaced by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal found it had jurisdiction and scheduled the application for a hearing.
Tribunal grants request to amend human rights application but dismisses premature document production request.
The applicant filed two Requests for Order During Proceedings before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.
The first request sought to amend the Application to allege discrimination in contracts rather than employment, which the respondents consented to while seeking to amend their Response.
The Tribunal granted both parties' requests to amend their pleadings.
The second request sought production of documents, which the Tribunal dismissed as premature because the time for disclosure under Rule 16 had not yet been triggered by a Confirmation of Hearing.
Tribunal denies deferral of human rights application pending early-stage WSIB appeals.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability after being dismissed for failing to report to a modified work position.
The respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the outcome of ongoing WSIB appeals regarding the suitability of the modified work and loss of earnings benefits.
The Tribunal denied the deferral request, noting that the WSIB proceedings were at an early stage and could not address all Code issues or remedies.
The Tribunal also granted the union intervenor status, dismissed the applicant's premature request for document production, and granted the applicant's unopposed request to amend the application.
Recusal request dismissed; adjudicator's prior representation of intervenor did not create reasonable apprehension of bias.
The complainant requested that the adjudicator recuse himself from hearing the case, alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias because the adjudicator had previously represented the Toronto Police Association, which sought to intervene in the proceeding.
The adjudicator dismissed the recusal request, finding that his prior role as a junior lawyer representing the Association did not create a reasonable apprehension of bias, especially given the standard one-year cooling-off period had passed.
The Tribunal also granted the Association's request to intervene on a limited basis regarding a production request.
Tribunal ordered preliminary submissions on jurisdiction and delay for an application filed 32 years post-dismissal.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discriminatory dismissal 32 years after his termination.
The respondent argued the application should be dismissed for abuse of process and delay, noting numerous prior proceedings including grievances, judicial reviews, and a previous human rights complaint.
The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the applicant to provide preliminary submissions on whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction under s. 53(8) of the Code and whether the time limit should be waived under s. 34(2).
Human rights application regarding pet ownership dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that her co-tenant and property manager engaged in reprisals by complaining about her dog barking.
The Tribunal previously issued an interim decision noting that pet ownership is not a protected ground under the Human Rights Code and that the applicant had not alleged a reprisal related to claiming or enforcing a Code right.
The applicant failed to provide submissions on jurisdiction as directed.
The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.
Human rights application deferred pending conclusion of ongoing grievance and arbitration process.
The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the grounds of race, colour, sex, and reprisal.
The Tribunal invited submissions on whether to defer the application because there was an ongoing grievance under a collective agreement dealing with the same facts.
The arbitration hearing had commenced and an adjournment request by the union was denied by the Board of Arbitration.
The Tribunal applied its general approach to defer applications where the facts and issues are part of an ongoing grievance process, and ordered the application deferred pending the conclusion of the grievance and arbitration process.
Tribunal assumed jurisdiction over transition application despite Commission closing the file as withdrawn.
The applicant filed a human rights complaint with the Commission before the transition date.
The Commission closed the file as 'withdrawn' after the applicant allegedly failed to respond to an intake officer, though the applicant claimed she had left messages.
The applicant then filed an application directly with the Tribunal under s. 34.
The respondents argued the application was barred by s. 53(8) of the Code.
The Tribunal held that because the applicant had not expressed an intention to withdraw the complaint and there was no statutory basis for the Commission's closure, the complaint was 'continued' within the meaning of s. 53(3).
The Tribunal assumed jurisdiction to process the application under the transition rules.
Tribunal directed applicant to provide submissions on jurisdiction where application alleged reprisal over pet ownership.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that her co-tenant and property manager engaged in reprisals by complaining about her dogs barking and requesting she keep them quiet.
The Tribunal noted that pet ownership is not a protected ground of discrimination under the Human Rights Code, and the applicant did not allege that the respondents' actions were in response to her claiming or enforcing a right under the Code.
The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide written submissions explaining how her application raises matters within the Tribunal's jurisdiction, failing which the application may be dismissed.
Tribunal scheduled a teleconference to address whether a four-year delay in filing was incurred in good faith.
The applicant filed an application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code more than four years after the last alleged incident.
The Tribunal issued an interim decision noting a significant issue regarding its jurisdiction due to the delay.
The Tribunal directed the Registrar to schedule a teleconference to hear submissions on whether the delay was incurred in good faith and whether substantial prejudice would result, before requiring the respondent to file a response.
Human rights application deferred pending completion of concurrent WSIAT proceedings regarding suitability of modified work.
The respondent requested that the human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability be deferred pending the completion of proceedings before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT).
The applicant had suffered a workplace injury and disputed whether the modified duties offered by the employer met his medical restrictions.
The Tribunal found that the suitability of the modified work was a central issue in both proceedings and that the WSIAT proceedings were well underway.
To avoid concurrent overlapping proceedings and the potential for conflicting findings, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the WSIAT proceedings.
Applicant ordered to provide clear response regarding WSIB appeal status and related documents.
The applicant filed a human rights application.
The respondents requested dismissal under section 45.1 of the Code, relying on a WSIB decision.
The Tribunal directed the applicant to advise whether he had appealed the WSIB decision and to provide related documents.
The applicant's response did not directly answer the direction and was not copied to the other parties.
The Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide a clear response and the requested documents by a specified deadline, warning that failure to do so might result in an adverse inference.
Tribunal orders multiple reprisal applications involving the same facts to be heard together.
The Tribunal considered whether multiple human rights applications filed by two applicants against various respondents should be heard together.
The applications alleged reprisals for asserting rights under the Human Rights Code and involved the same facts, witnesses, and documentary evidence.
The Tribunal ordered that the reprisal applications be heard together to ensure a fair and expeditious process, while keeping one unrelated application regarding long-term care placement separate.
Leave to withdraw human rights application granted.
The applicant requested leave to withdraw his human rights application against the City of Brampton pursuant to Rule 10 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.
The respondent made no submissions.
The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.
Human rights application deferred pending ongoing grievance process; interim relief denied.
The applicant, a labour relations officer, sought an interim remedy exempting him from travel to accommodate his family status, citing his spouse's high-risk pregnancy and their special needs child.
The respondent union requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending an ongoing grievance process under the collective agreement.
The Tribunal deferred the application, noting the availability of expedited arbitration under the Labour Relations Act, and declined to grant interim relief while the matter was deferred.
Tribunal applies established lead case procedure to 57 newly referred special diet allowance complaints.
The Ontario Human Rights Commission referred 57 additional complaints regarding the special diet allowance to the Tribunal.
The Tribunal ordered that these new complaints be subject to the same 'lead case' procedure previously established for over 100 similar complaints, suspending further steps until a final decision is issued in the lead cases.
Mandatory retirement at age 60 for suppression firefighters upheld as a bona fide occupational requirement.
The complainant, a former District Chief in the London Fire Department, alleged that the mandatory retirement age of 60 for suppression firefighters, negotiated in the collective agreement, constituted age discrimination under the Human Rights Code.
The respondents conceded prima facie discrimination but argued the provision was a bona fide occupational requirement (BFOR) due to the increased risk of cardiac events with age.
The Tribunal applied the Meiorin test and found that the respondents had justified the standard.
The Tribunal accepted expert evidence that the risk of cardiac events for firefighters is significant and increases with age, and that there is currently no individualized risk analysis for firefighters that is more accurate than using age alone.
The Tribunal also gave weight to the fact that the provision was negotiated by the union and employer to address health and safety concerns while providing an unreduced pension at age 60.
The complaint was dismissed.
Tribunal requested submissions on whether to defer family status accommodation application pending grievance procedure.
The applicant, a labour relations officer, requested accommodation on the basis of family status to be exempt from travel requirements during his spouse's pregnancy.
After his employer denied the request, he filed a grievance and an application with the Tribunal, seeking an expedited process and an interim remedy.
The respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the grievance procedure.
The Tribunal directed the parties to provide submissions on the deferral issue.