Eli Fellman

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

After the Tribunal scheduled a hearing, the respondent's counsel was unavailable and proposed alternate dates.

The applicant failed to respond to the respondent's letter and multiple subsequent communications from the Tribunal requesting alternate hearing dates.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned pursuant to Rule 5.4 of the HRTO Rules of Practice.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of gender identity regarding the 20-month waiting period for a Gender Identity Clinic assessment required for OHIP funding of sex reassignment surgery.

The respondent requested a deferral of the application because the applicant had also appealed the denial of funding to the Health Services Appeal and Review Board (HSARB).

The Tribunal granted the deferral, finding that the HSARB proceeding and the application addressed the same issues and that proceeding concurrently could lead to inconsistent decisions.

The applicant, a hair colourist, alleged that her employment was terminated because she was pregnant, contrary to the Human Rights Code.

The respondent salon maintained that the termination was due to inadequate job performance, lack of speed, and unprofessional interactions with clients and staff.

The Tribunal found that while the timing of the termination shortly after the pregnancy announcement established a prima facie case, the respondent provided a credible, non-discriminatory explanation.

The evidence, including three disciplinary letters issued prior to the termination, demonstrated that the dismissal was based solely on performance issues and inappropriate conduct.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability by the WSIB and a claims adjudicator.

The application had been deferred for over five years pending a WSIB appeal.

The applicant requested to re-activate the application, stating he had no intention of proceeding with the WSIB appeal.

The Tribunal lifted the deferral, finding no risk of inconsistent decisions since the WSIB appeal was not actively proceeding.

The Tribunal also directed that a preliminary hearing be scheduled to determine whether the application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success or because its substance was dealt with in another proceeding, and whether the individual respondent should be removed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging her employment was terminated because of her pregnancy and parental leave.

At the hearing, the respondents requested to defer the application because the corporate respondent had appealed an Employment Standards Act decision to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding the same termination.

The applicant consented to the deferral.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the proceedings addressed the same issues and deferral was appropriate to avoid inconsistent decisions.

The applicant filed an application alleging age discrimination in employment.

A preliminary hearing was scheduled by teleconference to determine if the application should be dismissed because another proceeding had dealt with the substance.

The applicant failed to attend the teleconference despite receiving proper notice.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant requested to re-activate her human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to services because of disability, while the respondent requested to defer it.

The Tribunal found that a proceeding relating to the same allegations was ongoing before the Social Benefits Tribunal.

To avoid concurrent proceedings and the possibility of inconsistent decisions, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the Social Benefits Tribunal proceeding.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be dismissed on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to file a response to the request and granted an extension of time to do so.

When the applicant failed to file a response or any written submissions by the extended deadline, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by his employer, the Royal Bank of Canada, regarding a vacation request for a religious ritual and a subsequent salary reduction.

The Tribunal dismissed the application at a preliminary stage for two reasons.

First, the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction because banks are federally regulated under the Constitution Act, 1867.

Second, the application was filed more than one year after the last alleged incident of discrimination, and the applicant failed to establish that the delay was incurred in good faith.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to add the owner of her apartment building as a personal respondent to her human rights application alleging discrimination in housing due to disability.

The respondents did not file submissions.

Applying the three-part test from Smyth, the Tribunal granted the request, finding that as the owner, the proposed respondent had a responsibility to perform required repairs, and if discrimination was proven, a remedy against him might be appropriate.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal.

The respondents requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing pending the resolution of a related criminal matter, and sought an extension of time to file an amended Response.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify delaying the hearing.

The Tribunal granted the request to file an amended Response on consent and extended the deadlines for document exchange and witness statements.

The applicant, an African-Canadian woman, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of race and colour after her employment was terminated.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's allegations, if proven, could result in a finding of a Code violation and were sufficiently plausible.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application and directed the respondent to file a response.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability and marital status.

The Tribunal directed the parties to exchange and file documents, witness lists, and witness statements.

The applicant failed to comply with these directions and a subsequent Case Assessment Direction warning of dismissal for abandonment.

As the applicant did not communicate with the Tribunal or file the required materials, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of a related Employment Standards Act (ESA) proceeding.

She also requested that the Tribunal application be consolidated with the ESA proceeding before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Tribunal denied the request, holding that the application must remain deferred until the ESA proceeding concludes, and noting that the Tribunal has no authority to consolidate its proceedings with ESA proceedings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race and disability following his termination.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing in writing to determine if the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the disability claim, finding the respondent had no knowledge of the applicant's medical issues prior to termination.

However, the Tribunal allowed the race discrimination claim to proceed to a full hearing, as the applicant's allegations of racist statements by a store manager required an assessment of evidence and credibility.

The applicant in a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of creed filed five Requests for an Order During Proceedings (Form 10s) seeking document production and witness lists shortly before the scheduled hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the requests, finding them untimely and an abuse of process, as the deadline for disclosure had passed over a month prior.

The Tribunal permitted the applicant to submit a late letter from his pastor, subject to the respondent's right to object at the hearing, and confirmed the applicant could testify based on his detailed Application despite failing to file a witness statement.

The applicant, a security guard, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of disability, claiming the respondents failed to accommodate her medical restrictions.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application because a concurrent grievance had been filed regarding the same facts and issues.

Despite opposition from both the applicant and the corporate respondent, the Tribunal deferred the application, noting the substantial overlap between the proceedings and the principle that grievance arbitrators have the authority to enforce human rights obligations.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application had been dealt with by the College of Early Childhood Educators in prior professional misconduct complaints.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that section 51(6) of the Early Childhood Educators Act, 2007 creates an absolute statutory privilege that renders the College's decisions inadmissible in civil proceedings, including Tribunal applications.

Consequently, there was no admissible evidence upon which the respondent could rely to support its section 45.1 request.

The applicant requested an order to amend his human rights application to include additional allegations, address his recent termination, amend requested remedies, and add the respondent's Chief Operating Officer (COO) as a personal respondent.

The respondent consented to the amendments regarding allegations and remedies but objected to adding the COO.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend the allegations and remedies, finding no prejudice given the early stage of proceedings.

However, the Tribunal declined to add the COO as a personal respondent, noting that the corporate respondent admitted vicarious liability for the COO's actions and there was no compelling reason to add him personally.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment.

The application was deferred pending the completion of an Employment Standards Act proceeding.

After the ESA proceeding concluded, the applicant was instructed to file a Request to reactivate the application using Form 10.

The applicant failed to submit the required documents despite being granted an extension of time.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.