HRTO 2008

The respondents requested to defer the human rights application pending the determination of a union grievance filed by OPSEU, which allegedly arose from the same facts.

The Tribunal noted its general practice of deferring applications where there is an ongoing grievance based on the same facts, but required submissions from the applicant before making a determination.

The applicant was directed to provide written submissions on the deferral request.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint with the Commission before the transition date.

The Commission closed the file as 'withdrawn' after the applicant allegedly failed to respond to an intake officer, though the applicant claimed she had left messages.

The applicant then filed an application directly with the Tribunal under s. 34.

The respondents argued the application was barred by s. 53(8) of the Code.

The Tribunal held that because the applicant had not expressed an intention to withdraw the complaint and there was no statutory basis for the Commission's closure, the complaint was 'continued' within the meaning of s. 53(3).

The Tribunal assumed jurisdiction to process the application under the transition rules.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The corporate respondent failed to file a Response by the deadline and was ordered to do so with an explanation.

The corporate respondent filed the Response eight days late, explaining that a former manager had failed to file it as believed by the shareholders.

The Tribunal accepted the explanation and permitted the late filing, subject to the applicant's right to raise prejudice.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that her co-tenant and property manager engaged in reprisals by complaining about her dogs barking and requesting she keep them quiet.

The Tribunal noted that pet ownership is not a protected ground of discrimination under the Human Rights Code, and the applicant did not allege that the respondents' actions were in response to her claiming or enforcing a right under the Code.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide written submissions explaining how her application raises matters within the Tribunal's jurisdiction, failing which the application may be dismissed.

The applicant filed an application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code more than four years after the last alleged incident.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision noting a significant issue regarding its jurisdiction due to the delay.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to schedule a teleconference to hear submissions on whether the delay was incurred in good faith and whether substantial prejudice would result, before requiring the respondent to file a response.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability after her employer refused to allow her to return to work following a knee injury.

The respondent employer requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the conclusion of a grievance arbitration hearing that raised the same facts and issues.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that deferral was appropriate as the grievance process was ongoing and the applicant had not identified any circumstances to depart from the Tribunal's normal approach.

The respondent requested that the human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability be deferred pending the completion of proceedings before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT).

The applicant had suffered a workplace injury and disputed whether the modified duties offered by the employer met his medical restrictions.

The Tribunal found that the suitability of the modified work was a central issue in both proceedings and that the WSIAT proceedings were well underway.

To avoid concurrent overlapping proceedings and the potential for conflicting findings, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the WSIAT proceedings.

The applicant filed a human rights application.

The respondents requested dismissal under section 45.1 of the Code, relying on a WSIB decision.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to advise whether he had appealed the WSIB decision and to provide related documents.

The applicant's response did not directly answer the direction and was not copied to the other parties.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide a clear response and the requested documents by a specified deadline, warning that failure to do so might result in an adverse inference.

The Tribunal considered whether multiple human rights applications filed by two applicants against various respondents should be heard together.

The applications alleged reprisals for asserting rights under the Human Rights Code and involved the same facts, witnesses, and documentary evidence.

The Tribunal ordered that the reprisal applications be heard together to ensure a fair and expeditious process, while keeping one unrelated application regarding long-term care placement separate.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw his human rights application against the City of Brampton pursuant to Rule 10 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondent made no submissions.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw her human rights application pursuant to Rule 10 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondent agreed to the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination and reprisal, along with a Request to Expedite Proceedings because her call to the bar deadline was approaching.

The Tribunal denied the request to expedite, noting that the applicant's employment ended over a year prior and she waited over six months after an unsuccessful mediation to file her Application, failing to demonstrate truly urgent circumstances.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission sought to introduce similar fact evidence from a witness regarding comments allegedly made by a respondent.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario considered the admissibility of the proposed evidence.

Despite concerns about the lack of particularity, the Tribunal ruled the evidence admissible, noting that any deficiencies in particularity or similarity would go to the weight of the evidence rather than its admissibility.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment by his supervisor at Bell Canada.

The respondent's response suggested the matter fell under federal jurisdiction but did not formally request dismissal.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision ordering the respondent to file a Request for Order During Proceedings (Form 10) if he intended to argue that the matter falls under federal rather than provincial jurisdiction.

The applicant filed an application under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code.

The respondent refused to participate in the scheduled mediation.

The Tribunal cancelled the mediation and issued a case management direction ordering the parties to exchange documents and prepare for a case resolution conference in accordance with the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability relating to events in the early 1990s, along with a request to expedite the proceedings.

The Tribunal dismissed the request to expedite, applying the test from Weerawardane.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had not demonstrated that the circumstances were truly urgent, particularly given that the alleged events occurred many years ago.

The applicant filed a human rights application against BMW Toronto, which failed to respond within the required timeframe.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision giving BMW Toronto a final deadline to file a response, failing which the Tribunal would proceed without further notice.

Additionally, the applicant requested to add BMW Canada as a respondent.

Applying the two-part test for adding a party, the Tribunal granted the request, finding that the allegations regarding the applicant's WSIB claim could support a finding of a Code violation against BMW Canada, and there was no prejudice to its ability to respond.

The complainants challenged the respondent's policy of disclosing mental health apprehensions on police reference checks.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal granted the complainants' request for a publication ban to anonymize their identities due to the highly personal nature of the information at issue.

The Tribunal also granted intervenor status to the Attorney General of Ontario to adduce expert evidence on the relevancy of such apprehensions to vulnerable sector checks.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in services on the basis of sex and sexual orientation by the respondent police service, along with a request to expedite proceedings.

The Tribunal reviewed the request and found no basis for concluding that the circumstances were truly urgent.

The request to expedite was denied.

The respondent requested an order deferring the human rights application on the basis that the subject matter was also the subject of concurrent criminal court proceedings.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that deferral was not appropriate because the criminal proceedings did not involve the same parties, would not address the human rights allegations, and could not provide human rights remedies.