Frank Angeletti

The applicant sought production of an investigation report prepared by an external investigator retained by the University of Western Ontario regarding allegations of sexual harassment.

The University, an affected party no longer involved in the application, opposed production claiming litigation and solicitor-client privilege because the investigator was a lawyer.

The Tribunal ordered production, finding that litigation privilege expired when the University ceased to be a party, and solicitor-client privilege did not apply because the investigator was retained to conduct fact-finding, not to provide legal advice.

The applicant requested to reactivate her deferred human rights application after her union withdrew her related grievance.

The respondent did not oppose reactivation but requested the application be dismissed for delay, arguing the allegations fell outside the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal granted the request to reactivate the application.

However, noting it had not received the applicant's medical evidence intended to explain the delay, the Tribunal ordered the applicant to file the medical evidence within 7 days before deciding on the request to dismiss.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The respondent requested that parts of the Application be dismissed as untimely, as they referred to events occurring more than one year prior to filing.

During a case conference, the applicant confirmed she was only proceeding with allegations that occurred on or after April 20, 2014.

The Tribunal dismissed the parts of the Application involving incidents prior to that date.

The Tribunal also adjourned the hearing to allow the parties to serve and file documents and witness statements relevant to the narrowed issues.

In an interim decision, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario considered the admissibility and relevance of evidence relating to disciplinary proceedings under the Police Services Act (PSA).

The applicant, a former police officer alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, objected to the respondent introducing evidence about his removal from the Emergency Response Unit and subsequent PSA and criminal charges.

The Tribunal found the evidence potentially relevant to the respondent's defence against allegations of a poisoned work environment.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that HRTO hearings are not 'civil proceedings' within the meaning of subsections 83(7) and 83(8) of the PSA, meaning the statutory privilege and inadmissibility provisions do not apply.

The applicant was compelled to testify regarding the PSA proceedings, and related documents were deemed admissible.

The respondents brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings to remove the personal respondent and dismiss parts of the human rights application as untimely.

The Tribunal granted the request to remove the personal respondent, finding that the organizational respondent had implicitly assumed liability for her actions.

The Tribunal deferred the issue of timeliness to the hearing adjudicator to determine whether the older factual assertions were separate allegations or context for timely allegations.

The applicant, who uses a mobility scooter due to a disability, was initially denied entry to the respondent's restaurant by a staff member who mistook the scooter for a road vehicle.

The applicant re-entered without the scooter, at which point the staff member realized the error, apologized, offered free coffee, and told him he could bring the scooter inside.

The Tribunal found that while the initial denial constituted discrimination under the Human Rights Code, the immediate apology and accommodation significantly mitigated the injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The Tribunal awarded the applicant $1,000 in compensation.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking an order directing a third-party news organization, CTV London, to produce electronic documents, including a video of the alleged incident and the contact information of the customer who recorded it.

The respondent opposed the request, arguing the material was not relevant.

The Tribunal found the video arguably relevant to the issue in dispute and ordered the third party to produce the requested materials, leaving ultimate admissibility to the hearing adjudicator.

The applicant alleged that the respondent police service discriminated against her on various Code grounds by failing to properly investigate her complaints of being followed and telepathically harassed.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the Application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant was unable to point to any evidence, other than her own belief, linking the respondent's actions to a Code ground.

The Application was dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant, who has mental health disabilities, alleged that the respondent police service discriminated against her by failing to lay charges against her ex-boyfriend for sexual assault and against her neighbour for a dispute.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found no evidence to suggest the applicant's disability was a factor in the policing outcomes, noting her vague recollection of events and the appropriateness of the police response.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend her Application to include events taking place in November 2012, including her resignation.

The respondents did not oppose the amendment.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding no prejudice and noting it would be expeditious to proceed with all allegations concerning the applicant's employment.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to amend his human rights application to include new allegations of discrimination.

The respondent consented to the request and filed a second amended response.

The Tribunal granted the request on consent, ordering the application and response amended, and directed the applicant to file a consolidated book of pleadings prior to the hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination after being terminated from his employment.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed several procedural requests.

The Tribunal granted the respondent's requests to correct its name and remove the personal respondent, but denied its requests to dismiss the application for lack of a prima facie case and for particulars.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to amend the application to add a ground of sex discrimination, but denied his requests to add a new personal respondent and for early production of documents.

The respondent employer requested that the Tribunal defer the human rights application pending the conclusion of outstanding grievances, and dismiss parts of the application based on a prior settlement and section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal declined to defer the application because there was no indication the grievances were proceeding to arbitration.

The Tribunal also declined to strike pre-settlement allegations as the applicant confirmed he was only complaining about post-settlement conduct, and deferred the section 45.1 request to the hearing on the merits.

The applicant filed an application under section 23(3) of the Pay Equity Act.

Prior to the commencement of the hearing, the parties engaged in settlement discussions and resolved the matter.

Consequently, the applicant withdrew her application, and the scheduled hearing dates were cancelled.

The applicant sought to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the outcome of a workplace grievance-arbitration process.

The respondents opposed reactivation, arguing that the grievance process was still active and awaiting arbitration dates.

The Tribunal found that the grievance-arbitration procedure was continuing and that the applicant's dissatisfaction with its pace was not a sufficient reason to reactivate the Tribunal process.

The request to reactivate the application was denied.

The respondents requested to defer the human rights application pending the outcome of an ongoing workplace grievance-arbitration process.

The applicant opposed the deferral, arguing the grievance only dealt with disability accommodation and not the allegations of discrimination based on age, race, and place of origin.

The Tribunal found that the key issue of disability accommodation was central to both proceedings and that deferral was appropriate to avoid adjudicative duplication and inconsistent decisions.

The application was deferred pending the conclusion of the grievance process.

The applicant, a radiation therapist, took a leave of absence due to breast cancer and subsequent physical and psychological complications.

She alleged that her employer, Hamilton Health Sciences, discriminated against her by denying her health benefits and failing to accommodate her disability by providing alternate work outside of the cancer care environment.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario found that the applicant's conditions constituted a disability under the Code.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the application, concluding that the employer had fulfilled both its procedural and substantive duties to accommodate up to the point of undue hardship by extensively searching for suitable alternate positions over several years, which were ultimately unsuccessful due to the applicant's specific restrictions and lack of transferable skills.

The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint.

Following a representation vote, the union withdrew its status challenges, which would have resulted in the dismissal of the certification application but for the unfair labour practice complaint.

The complaint hearing was deferred because the employer had not received notice.

The union requested that a new panel hear the complaint as soon as possible, while the employer argued the current panel was seized.

The Vice-Chair ruled he was not seized of the complaint as he had not commenced hearing it, and referred the matter to the Registrar to be scheduled for hearing before a new panel at the earliest opportunity.

The parties requested an adjournment of the proceedings to attempt to negotiate a collective agreement in light of changed circumstances.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request, adjourning the scheduled dates in September and October, while maintaining the December dates.

The applicant union referred a matter to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act and the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Following an initial hearing, the parties agreed to attempt to develop member profiles.

The Board issued an interim order authorizing the responding party to release health care information if an agreement on member profiles is reached, and adjourned the matter to a later date.