Esi Codjoe

In an interim decision, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario ruled on multiple requests for orders during proceedings.

The respondent Securitas sought production of minutes of settlement between the applicant and a former respondent, Pepsi.

The Tribunal ordered disclosure of the settlement quantum to prevent double recovery, applying an exception to settlement privilege.

The applicant's request to amend his application to significantly increase the damages claimed was denied due to delay and lack of material change in circumstances.

The applicant's requests for production of internal correspondence were granted in part regarding the respondent All Star Security's hiring process, but denied regarding Securitas and Pepsi for being overbroad or lacking arguable relevance.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a hearing regarding an alleged contravention of settlement under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant asserted she did not receive the Tribunal's correspondence outlining her disclosure obligations and expressed confusion about those obligations once aware of them.

She also indicated a need for accommodation in the hearing process.

The respondent objected to the adjournment.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment to ensure fair access to justice, allowing time for the applicant to fulfill disclosure obligations and for the Tribunal to address her accommodation needs.

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to dismiss parts of the human rights application due to delay and to remove the personal respondent.

The applicant alleged a series of discriminatory incidents and failure to accommodate his disability over several years.

The Tribunal held that determining whether the incidents constituted a series under section 34(1)(b) of the Human Rights Code required hearing evidence, and deferred the delay issue to the hearing adjudicator.

The Tribunal also declined to remove the personal respondent, finding it premature prior to the disclosure of documents and witness statements.

The respondents' requests were denied.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) warning that failure to respond could lead to the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant requested and received an extension of time to respond, but failed to file a response by the extended deadline.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The respondents brought a Request for Order During Proceedings to dismiss the human rights application, arguing it was filed past the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the one-year deadline fell on a Saturday, and the following Monday was a statutory holiday.

Because the application was received on the next business day, the Tribunal held that the application was timely.

The respondents' request to dismiss the application was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sexual harassment and assault by an employee of the organizational respondents.

She subsequently brought a request to add the alleged perpetrator as a personal respondent.

The organizational respondents opposed the request, citing delay and denying vicarious liability.

The Tribunal applied the Smyth and Persaud factors and granted the request, finding that the proposed respondent's conduct was central to the allegations and that adding him was necessary to ensure the Tribunal's jurisdiction to award a remedy, particularly since the organizational respondents did not accept vicarious liability.

The applicant requested to amend the name of the organizational respondent to reflect its status as a sole proprietorship, to add a personal respondent, and to amend the particulars and remedies sought in his human rights application.

The Tribunal granted the requests, finding that the organizational respondent was indeed a sole proprietorship, that the proposed personal respondent's conduct was central to the allegations of a poisoned work environment and discriminatory termination, and that the requested amendments to the remedies were typical and appropriate.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

A preliminary hearing was scheduled by teleconference, and notice was properly served on the applicant.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing and did not communicate with the Tribunal to explain the absence.

Consequently, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The respondents requested the removal of three personal respondents from a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on age, ethnic origin, and race.

The Tribunal applied the factors from Sigrist and Persaud, noting that the corporate respondent accepted vicarious liability for the personal respondents' actions, which occurred within the scope of their employment.

Finding no prejudice to the applicant, the Tribunal granted the request and removed the personal respondents from the application.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability and citizenship, claiming the respondent pharmacy dispensed expired medication and engaged in fraud and misrepresentation.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

The applicant's written submissions focused on consumer protection and food and drug administration statutes rather than connecting the respondent's conduct to a prohibited ground under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found it plain and obvious that the subject matter did not fall within its jurisdiction and dismissed the application.

The applicant in a human rights application alleging disability discrimination requested to amend her application to add the owner of the corporate respondent as a personal respondent, correct the corporate respondent's name, and amend the remedies sought.

The Tribunal applied the three-part test from Smyth and Persaud and found it fair and just to add the owner as a personal respondent, noting that his conduct was the central issue in the case and he had constructive notice of the application.

The requests to correct the corporate name and amend the remedies were granted on consent.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging workplace harassment and a poisoned work environment based on race, colour, ancestry, and place of origin.

The applicant also filed a union grievance and a Ministry of Labour claim under the Employment Standards Act based on the same facts.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer.

Despite the applicant's opposition due to a lack of confidence in his union, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the concurrent proceedings to avoid inconsistent findings of fact and promote adjudicative economy.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on race, ancestry, ethnic origin, and family status regarding his adoption in 1962 and interactions with the Children's Aid Society in 2008.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for delay, as the application was filed approximately nine years after the last alleged incident.

The applicant argued the delay was justified due to the continuing effects of the discrimination and his lack of knowledge about his rights.

The Tribunal found that the incidents were discrete and did not constitute a series of events, and that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for not inquiring about his rights sooner.

The application was dismissed as untimely.

The applicant, a student with an intellectual disability, alleged discrimination in services after being exempted from the EQAO standardized test.

The applicant claimed that receiving a zero score on the test negatively impacted the funding and services he received at school.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to provide any evidence beyond mere speculation that he was denied a service or that EQAO scores affected school funding or his access to services.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

After requesting to reschedule mediation, the applicant failed to respond to multiple communications from the Tribunal directing him to provide alternate dates and advise of his intentions.

The Tribunal warned the applicant that failure to respond could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

As the applicant did not respond, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging his employment was terminated after he requested accommodation for a disability.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer the application because the applicant had previously filed an Employment Standards Act claim based on the same facts.

The Tribunal granted the request and deferred the application, finding a substantial risk of inconsistent factual findings if the two proceedings were to proceed concurrently.

The Tribunal, on its own motion, reconsidered its previous decision granting the applicant's contravention of settlement application.

The Tribunal discovered that prior to the original hearing, the respondent's representative had submitted an adjournment request due to illness, which was not brought to the adjudicator's attention.

Consequently, the Tribunal ordered that the previous decision be reconsidered and the hearing be reconvened.