Request for Tribunal Ordered Inquiry to secure medical evidence denied as parties must produce their own evidence.
The applicant in a human rights complaint requested a Tribunal Ordered Inquiry to secure medical evidence regarding the causes of her medical condition, her prognosis, and appropriate remedies.
She alleged that she had been unable to obtain this evidence and that the respondents may have interfered.
The Tribunal denied the request, noting that parties are responsible for bringing the evidence necessary to maintain their positions and that a Tribunal Ordered Inquiry is not a substitute for the normal production process.
Tribunal dismisses older human rights allegations for delay and seeks submissions on deferring remaining claims.
The respondents requested an order to dismiss the human rights application for delay or to defer it pending the outcome of related union grievances.
The Tribunal found that several of the applicant's older allegations dating back to 1998 and 2005 were out of time under section 34 of the Human Rights Code and dismissed them.
For the remaining timely allegations of workplace harassment and sex discrimination, the Tribunal directed the parties to provide submissions on the status of an ongoing grievance to determine whether the application should be deferred under section 45.1.
Employer breached duty to accommodate by terminating employee for cause immediately after receiving medical note.
The applicant, a SCADA Protection and Control Supervisor, was terminated for cause shortly after requesting a four-week medical leave for depression and anxiety.
The employer had previously decided to terminate him without cause due to his resistance to sharing critical system passwords, but accelerated the termination to 'for cause' when he failed to attend work and was unreachable.
The Tribunal found that by proceeding with the termination for cause despite being made aware of a potential medical issue, the employer failed in its procedural and substantive duty to accommodate the applicant's disability.
The liability portion of the application was allowed in part.
Adjournment request denied where applicant failed to show how alleged non-disclosure in separate proceeding prejudiced hearing.
The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing on the basis that the respondents failed to disclose numerous items in a separate academic misconduct proceeding.
The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant failed to explain what the materials were, how their non-disclosure impacted his ability to proceed, or how legal remedies in the other proceeding affected this Application.
The Tribunal also issued directions for the filing of witness lists and detailed summaries of expected evidence to ensure an expeditious hearing.
Respondent's request for further production of employment insurance and medical documents denied for lack of relevance.
The respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking production of documents related to the applicant's employment insurance claim and medical records regarding in-vitro fertilization treatments.
The applicant provided several documents in response, including T4E slips and a letter from her treating physician.
The Tribunal found that the applicant had complied with the request to the extent the documents were arguably relevant and that further detailed information was not arguably relevant to the proceeding.
The request for further production was denied.
Human rights application dismissed under s. 45.1 as substance was dealt with in police complaints process.
The respondents brought a request for early dismissal of the human rights application under section 45.1 of the Code, arguing that the substance of the application had been appropriately dealt with in a complaint process under Part V of the Police Services Act.
The applicant argued that the prior process was not a 'proceeding' because he was unrepresented and did not effectively participate.
The Tribunal rejected this argument, finding that the opportunity to participate fully and be represented is what characterizes a proceeding, and the applicant's failure to participate was his own responsibility.
Finding that the substance of the application was appropriately dealt with in the prior proceeding, the Tribunal dismissed the application.
Request for production of companion complaint settlement documents denied for lack of arguable relevance.
The respondent union requested an order for the production of documents and notes related to the settlement of a companion human rights complaint between the applicant and his employer.
The applicant opposed the request, citing settlement privilege.
The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the settlement documents were not arguably relevant to the issue of potential damages owing by the union, as the union was not a party to the settlement, there was no evident overlap in remedies, and the allegations against the union differed from those against the employer.
Adjournment request denied; out-of-province work conflict does not constitute exceptional circumstances.
The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing because he would be working out of the province on that date.
The respondents did not consent.
The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant's work conflict did not constitute exceptional circumstances as required by the Tribunal's Practice Direction on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Requests for Adjournment.
Adjournment request dismissed as witness unavailability due to vacations and work did not constitute extraordinary circumstances.
The respondents requested an adjournment of a hearing scheduled for July 19, 2010, citing witness unavailability due to family obligations, summer vacations, and work commitments.
The applicant did not consent.
The Tribunal dismissed the request, noting that the hearing date was set after consultation with the parties months prior, and the reasons provided did not constitute extraordinary circumstances as required by the Tribunal's Practice Direction.
Reconsideration request dismissed as applicant merely attempted to re-argue issues already decided.
The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous decision (2010 HRTO 1271) that dismissed her human rights application against the Oshawa Public Library.
The Tribunal found that the applicant's submissions merely attempted to re-argue the issues dealt with at the hearing and disagreed with the findings of fact, which are not proper bases for reconsideration under Rule 25.5.
The request for reconsideration was dismissed.
Human rights application dismissed as substance was appropriately dealt with in prior federal proceeding.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that the respondent insurance carrier discriminated against him on the basis of disability by conspiring with his employer to sabotage his return to work.
The respondent brought a request for early dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter was already dealt with in a federal human rights complaint against the employer.
The Tribunal found that the federal proceeding, which included judicial review, had appropriately dealt with the substance of the application, specifically the proposed accommodation and return to work discussions.
The application was dismissed.
Tribunal declines to apply issue estoppel to bind employer to EI Board of Referees' findings.
The applicant requested reconsideration of an earlier interim decision and argued that the respondents should be bound by the findings of a Board of Referees regarding her entitlement to employment insurance benefits.
The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration as it did not meet the criteria under Rule 25.5.
The Tribunal also declined to apply the doctrine of issue estoppel to bind the respondents to the Board's findings, noting that the Board proceeding was summary in nature and the respondents did not have an opportunity to cross-examine the applicant's physician, whose evidence was central to the Board's determination.
Tribunal orders Case Resolution Conference to hear submissions on whether arbitration settlement bars human rights application.
The applicant filed a transitional human rights application alleging her union discriminated against her on the basis of age and disability in processing a grievance.
The underlying grievance was settled at arbitration, and the union argued the application should be dismissed as an abuse of process or under section 45.1 of the Code.
The Tribunal directed a Case Resolution Conference to hear oral submissions on this issue.
The Tribunal also denied the applicant's request to add her former employer as a respondent, noting the new allegations related to the arbitration settlement did not form part of the original complaint.
Tribunal removes individual respondents, denies deferral to HSARB, and orders applicant to provide particulars.
The corporate respondent brought requests for orders during the proceeding, including the removal of individual respondents, dismissal or deferral of the application due to the jurisdiction of the Health Services Appeal and Review Board (HSARB), and dismissal based on a recent Divisional Court decision regarding speech and language services.
The Tribunal removed the individual respondents on consent and dismissed the request to defer to the HSARB.
The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide particulars of her allegations and deferred the remaining requests to be heard at the Case Resolution Conference.
Section 45.1 dismissal denied where applicant did not consent to prior union grievance settlement.
The respondents requested the early dismissal of a human rights application under section 45.1 of the Code, arguing that the substance of the application had been appropriately dealt with in a prior labour arbitration proceeding.
The arbitration had culminated in a settlement between the union and the employer, but the applicant/grievor had not accepted the settlement.
The Tribunal held that section 45.1 and the doctrine of abuse of process cannot be applied where the substance of the application was settled over the objection of the applicant.
The request for early dismissal was denied.
Human rights application deferred on consent pending outcome of WSIA appeals.
The applicant filed a transitional application under section 53(5) of the Human Rights Code.
On consent of both parties, the Tribunal ordered the application deferred pending the outcome of the applicant's Workplace Safety and Insurance Act appeals.
The application may be re-activated within 60 days of the conclusion of the WSIA proceedings.
Human rights applications deferred pending resolution of outstanding union grievances.
The applicant filed human rights applications against her employer and union alleging discrimination on the basis of disability.
The respondents requested that the applications be dismissed or deferred pending the outcome of outstanding grievances, that the corporate respondent be corrected, and that the personal respondents be removed.
The Tribunal deferred the applications pending the resolution of the outstanding grievances, substituted Complex Services Inc. for the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation as the corporate respondent, and removed the individual respondents from the employer application.
Request to consolidate human rights applications dismissed due to different procedural stages and lack of service.
The applicant requested an order to consolidate his section 53(5) application regarding a 2006 incident of alleged police misconduct with a section 34 application regarding a separate incident.
The respondent objected, noting it had not been served with the section 34 application and that the two applications related to discrete events separated by four years.
The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding it would not be fair, just, or expeditious to consolidate the matters given their different stages of proceeding and the impending hearing date for the initial application.
Reconsideration request dismissed; parties cannot use reconsideration to re-argue findings of fact.
The respondents requested a reconsideration of the Tribunal's previous decisions regarding liability and remedy for the termination of the applicant's employment.
The respondents argued there were palpable errors in findings of fact, specifically regarding whether the termination was informed by the applicant's perceived disability, and disputed the calculation of lost wages and business losses.
The Tribunal dismissed the request, holding that reconsideration is not an appeal or an opportunity to re-argue findings of fact.
Tribunal removed individual respondents on consent and deferred timeliness and production issues to oral hearing.
The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, colour, and age.
Both parties filed Requests for Order During Proceeding.
On consent, the Tribunal removed the individual respondents from the application and ordered that documents containing references to prior mediations be sealed.
The Tribunal deferred the remaining issues regarding timeliness, the scope of the application, and production of documents to be addressed at the scheduled oral hearing.