Request for reconsideration of interim decision denied as reconsideration is only available for final decisions.
The applicant requested reconsideration of an interim decision that denied his request to expedite the matter.
The Tribunal denied the request for reconsideration, noting that under Rule 26.1 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, reconsideration is only available for final decisions.
The previous decision was not final, and the new information provided did not establish urgency.
Tribunal declines to dismiss application at preliminary stage as federal jurisdiction is not plain and obvious.
The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment.
The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that the respondent appeared to be a federally regulated business.
The applicant did not make submissions.
The Tribunal held that an application will only be dismissed at this stage if it is plain and obvious that the matter falls under federal jurisdiction.
Finding that this test was not met, the Tribunal directed that it would continue to deal with the application.
Tribunal allows age discrimination application challenging provincial income tax regime to proceed past jurisdictional screening.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that portions of the provincial Income Tax Act constitute discrimination on the basis of age.
The Tribunal initially issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting that the respondent appeared to be a federal entity.
After reviewing the applicant's written submissions clarifying that the challenge was directed at Ontario's income tax regime, the Tribunal concluded it was not plain and obvious that the matter fell under federal jurisdiction.
The Tribunal directed that the application continue.
Human rights application allowed to proceed as it was not manifestly under federal jurisdiction.
The applicant filed a human rights application against his former employer, the Public Service Alliance of Canada, and several of its employees.
The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that the employer appeared to be federally regulated.
After reviewing the applicant's written submissions, the Tribunal concluded it was not plain and obvious that the matter fell under federal jurisdiction and directed that the application be processed, without making a final determination on jurisdiction.
Human rights application regarding special diet allowance deferred pending outcome of related lead cases.
The applicant filed a human rights application regarding the special diet allowance under the Ontario Disability Support Program and requested that scheduling be deferred until lead cases on the same issue were heard.
The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer, and no submissions were received.
The Tribunal suspended all requirements for further steps in the matter until after the lead cases are decided.
Application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as the same complaint was previously filed with the Commission.
The applicant filed an application relating to a 2004 job competition.
She had previously filed a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission regarding the same subject matter, which was dismissed for delay.
The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.
The Tribunal found that under section 53(8) of the Human Rights Code, it has no jurisdiction to hear an application if the subject matter is the same or substantially the same as a complaint previously filed with the Commission.
The application was dismissed.
Request to expedite human rights application denied as financial hardship from dismissal did not constitute urgent circumstances.
The applicant, who alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of race and ethnic origin following his dismissal, requested that his application be expedited under Rule 21 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.
He cited financial hardship and the need to pay his mortgage.
The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant had not demonstrated truly urgent circumstances requiring a particularly rapid resolution compared to the regular process, as he was not seeking reinstatement and had not shown specific reasons why his financial situation was uniquely devastating compared to other dismissal cases.
Request to expedite deferred pending scheduled mediation between the parties.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability and family status after receiving a trespass notice preventing him from entering his son's school premises.
The applicant requested to expedite the proceedings.
Noting that both parties expressed willingness to mediate, the Tribunal scheduled a mediation date and deferred the request to expedite until after mediation, if necessary.
Written hearing granted where respondents failed to participate despite adequate notice.
The Ontario Human Rights Commission requested a written hearing for a complaint alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, as the respondents had failed to participate in the Tribunal's process.
The Tribunal found that sufficient notice had been given to the respondents and granted the request, issuing a Notice of Written Hearing.
Human rights complaint dismissed; decision to call security on Black complainant was based on behaviour, not race.
The complainant, a Black man, alleged that he was discriminated against on the basis of race and colour by the respondent municipality when he attended City Hall to pick up a response to a freedom of information request.
During a dispute over the contents of the information package, a City employee called security, and a security guard subsequently escorted the complainant from the premises.
The Tribunal found that the complainant was loud, aggressive, and banged his fist on the counter during the interaction.
The Tribunal concluded that the decision to call security was based entirely on the complainant's behaviour and that race was not a factor.
The complaint was dismissed.
Duty to accommodate does not require a medical professional to obtain significant new qualifications.
The complainants, two transsexual women, alleged discrimination in services on the basis of sex after a plastic surgeon refused to perform cosmetic surgeries on them.
The surgeon, who specialized in genital and breast surgeries for non-transsexual patients, determined he was not qualified to perform the requested procedures on transsexual patients due to anatomical differences and the need for a specialized team approach.
The Tribunal found that while the refusal constituted prima facie discrimination, the respondents established a bona fide justification.
The Tribunal held that the duty to accommodate does not require an individual medical professional to obtain significant new qualifications or substantially change their practice, as this would constitute undue hardship.
Extension of time to file revised hearing brief denied due to prejudice to the complainant.
The Ontario Human Rights Commission requested an extension of time to file a revised hearing brief, citing a busy hearing schedule and the laborious nature of the task.
The respondents consented on the condition of equivalent extensions, but the complainant opposed the request because her counsel was starting a new position and would be unable to assist if the extension were granted.
The Tribunal denied the extension, finding that it would cause prejudice to the complainant and noting that the need for revised pleadings arose from the Commission's failure to follow the Rules.
Commission ordered to organize 2,000-page disclosure chronologically and file a compliant hearing brief.
The respondents brought a motion arguing that the Ontario Human Rights Commission's disclosure and hearing brief did not comply with the Tribunal's Rules of Practice.
The Tribunal found that the Commission's disclosure, consisting of over 2,000 unorganized pages, and its hearing brief, which relied on references to other documents rather than stating material facts, were deficient.
The Tribunal ordered the Commission to re-submit its disclosure in chronological order with an index and to file a new hearing brief that complies with Rule 57.
Commission directed to serve corporate respondent at its correct mailing address before written hearing request considered.
The Commission requested a written hearing but the evidence indicated it had not served the corporate respondent at its mailing address listed on the Corporation Profile Report, having sent documents to the registered office address instead.
The Tribunal directed the Commission to serve the referral brief and notice of the request for written hearing to the correct mailing address and provide confirmation of delivery.
The Tribunal deferred its decision on the request for a written hearing until after the deadline for the corporate respondent to advise if it intends to participate.
Tribunal denied Commission's request for document production prior to filing hearing briefs.
The Ontario Human Rights Commission requested an order for the production of documents from the respondents and an extension of the deadline to file its hearing brief until after the documents were produced.
The Tribunal denied the request to order production prior to the filing of hearing briefs, finding no unique circumstances to justify an exception to the general rule that procedural matters are not determined prior to the filing of hearing briefs and disclosure.
A schedule for filing hearing briefs and production was ordered.
Employer failed to justify discriminatory dismissal of truck driver with heart condition; damages awarded.
The complainant, a long-haul truck driver, was dismissed by his employer after returning from a medical leave for a heart condition.
The employer claimed the dismissal was necessary because the company's insurance policy might be cancelled and the complainant posed a safety risk.
The Tribunal found that the employer failed to prove that the insurance policy was actually at risk of cancellation or that the complainant posed an unacceptable safety risk.
The Tribunal concluded that the dismissal was discriminatory and awarded general damages, moral damages, lost wages, and medical expenses, along with public interest remedies.
Tribunal finalizes procedural order and timetable for managing multiple special diet allowance complaints.
The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario issued an interim decision finalizing a procedural order to manage multiple complaints regarding the special diet allowance.
The order establishes a timetable for selecting lead cases, disclosing documents, identifying issues, and filing evidence and pleadings.
The Tribunal incorporated minor changes requested by the respondent and the clinic caseworkers representing the complainants.
The respondent's right to request a stay of proceedings due to concurrent litigation before the Social Benefits Tribunal was preserved.
Tribunal sets timetable and process for hearing preliminary objections to human rights complaint.
Following a pre-hearing conference call, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario issued an interim decision establishing a process to address preliminary objections raised by the respondents.
The respondents argued that the Tribunal should not hear the matter or that some allegations should be excluded.
The Tribunal ordered the complainant and the Commission to clarify the specific actions alleged to constitute discrimination, and set a timetable for written submissions, documentary evidence, and a one-day oral hearing to determine the preliminary issues.
Tribunal adopts lead case approach for 77 related complaints challenging special diet allowance regime.
The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario held a case management conference to determine the procedure for 77 related complaints challenging the special diet allowance regime.
The Tribunal adopted a joint proposal by counsel to proceed with two to six lead cases to be heard together, finding it to be a fair, just, and expeditious manner of resolving the complex complaints.
The Tribunal also addressed privacy concerns by ordering that disclosure be exchanged only among parties to the lead cases and that lead complainants remain anonymous in public documents.
Adjournment of case management conference denied; counsel's vacation schedule does not justify rescheduling without all parties' consent.
The Ontario Human Rights Commission requested an adjournment of a case management conference scheduled for 77 consolidated complaints regarding the special diet allowance under the Ontario Disability Support Program.
The Commission's lead counsel requested the adjournment because he would be on a long-planned vacation.
The Tribunal denied the request, noting that it does not reschedule initial conference calls without the written consent of all parties, and that a party's desire to have particular counsel attend cannot justify an adjournment.