HRTO 2008

The applicant filed a human rights application.

The respondents failed to file a Response within the 35-day period required by the Tribunal's Rules and failed to respond to notices regarding mediation.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondents to file a Response and an explanation for the delay by a specified date, warning that failure to do so could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice to them and deeming them to have accepted the allegations.

The respondent requested an order deferring the human rights application because the subject matter was currently before a criminal court.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the applicant to provide submissions on whether the application should be deferred pending the resolution of the criminal proceedings, and to advise on the status of any complaint to the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The respondent filed an incomplete response, omitting required information such as a summary of facts, issues, and lists of documents or witnesses.

The Tribunal directed the respondent to file a complete response by December 31, 2008, noting that a complete response is necessary to facilitate a fair, just, and expeditious resolution.

The Tribunal also directed the Registrar to schedule mediation once the pleadings are complete.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw their human rights application filed under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability arising from statements and orders made by a judge during a civil court proceeding.

The respondents asserted that the Superior Court of Justice is not a suable entity, that complaints about judicial conduct are not properly the subject of Code proceedings, and that court adjudication does not constitute 'services' under section 1 of the Code.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision ordering the parties to provide written submissions on these jurisdictional and procedural issues.

The applicant filed a transitional application under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code regarding special education programs and services.

The respondent sought early dismissal of the application, arguing the claims were fully adjudicated in a prior proceeding and that the local school board was the proper respondent.

The Tribunal exercised its discretion to alter the standard process of early mediation, directing that the respondent's preliminary request for early dismissal be addressed first, and set a schedule for written submissions and a case resolution conference.

The applicant requested to cancel a scheduled mediation for medical reasons and to transfer his application from section 53(3) to section 53(5) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal held that because the applicant had already abandoned his complaint at the Commission to make a section 53(3) application, there was no continued complaint to form the basis of a section 53(5) application.

The mediation was cancelled due to the applicant's unavailability and will be rescheduled.

The applicant filed a human rights application.

The respondents failed to file a Response by the required deadline.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondents of the consequences of failing to participate under Rule 5.5 and granting them a final extension to November 24, 2008, to file a Response with an explanation for the delay.

The personal respondent filed a Response to a human rights application more than 50 days after it was due.

He argued the delay was because the application misnamed him and he lacked funds for legal assistance.

The Tribunal noted that lack of funds is not a valid reason for delay, but accepted the late Response because the misnaming may have caused confusion and the proceeding could lead to orders against him.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The respondents argued that the application was barred by section 34(11)(a) of the Code because the applicant had already commenced a civil action seeking damages for the same alleged infringement.

The Tribunal exercised its discretion to determine this preliminary jurisdictional issue prior to mediation and ordered the parties to file written submissions.

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

The respondents declined to participate in mediation and requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1, arguing the substance was already dealt with by the Employment Standards Branch.

The Tribunal exercised its discretion to address the preliminary objection prior to mediation, cancelled the scheduled mediation, and set a schedule for written submissions on the request to dismiss or defer the application.

The respondents requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because their counsel suffered an unexpected injury and was unable to walk or travel.

The complainant and the Commission opposed the adjournment, citing the stress of the delay and suggesting that in-house counsel could step in.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding it justified and appropriate given the unexpected circumstances and the respondents' right to be represented by the counsel who prepared their case.

The applicant filed two transitional applications under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code alleging employment discrimination on the basis of disability against his union and his employer.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision finding that the applications involved similar facts and legal issues.

To ensure a fair, just, and highly expeditious process, the Tribunal ordered that the applications proceed together for the purposes of mediation.

The applicant filed two human rights applications under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code against her former employer and her bargaining agent, alleging discrimination on the basis of age and disability.

The Tribunal found that the applications involved substantially similar facts and legal issues.

To ensure a fair, just, and highly expeditious process, the Tribunal ordered that the applications proceed together for the purposes of mediation.

The Tribunal issued interim directions setting a schedule for the complainant to file amendments to her submissions and for the respondents to file responses.

The Tribunal also scheduled a hearing to address preliminary issues, including the addition of potential responding parties, production requests, admissibility of evidence, and duplication of counsel.

Five applicants filed transitional applications under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code alleging discrimination in contract and employment on the basis of age and sex against the same respondent.

The Tribunal found that the applications involved similar facts and legal issues.

To ensure a fair, just, and highly expeditious process, the Tribunal ordered that the applications proceed together for the purposes of mediation.

The applicant filed a human rights application and the matter was scheduled for mediation.

The respondents requested an adjournment, which the applicant opposed by refusing to participate in a rescheduled mediation.

The Tribunal cancelled the mediation and issued case management directions to move the matter forward to a case resolution conference, ordering the exchange of documents and statements of facts.

The applicant filed a transition application under s. 53(3) of the Human Rights Code after previously signing Minutes of Settlement and a release during a Commission mediation.

The settlement was not formally approved by the Commission.

The Tribunal held that it lacked jurisdiction over the s. 53(3) application because the complaint was not 'continued' within the meaning of the transition provisions.

The parties' unequivocal and binding expression of intent to resolve the complaint meant it was no longer active, regardless of the lack of formal Commission approval.

Two applicants filed transitional applications under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sexual orientation by the same respondents.

The Tribunal found that the applications involved similar facts and legal issues.

To ensure a fair, just, and highly expeditious process, the Tribunal ordered that the applications proceed together for the purposes of mediation.

In a case management conference call, the Tribunal noted that the respondents failed to file required will say statements and that their hearing brief did not comply with the Tribunal's Rules.

Despite the respondents' counsel failing to provide a reasonable explanation for the non-compliance, the Tribunal granted the respondents a further opportunity to file an amended hearing brief and the required will say statements.

The Tribunal warned that failure to comply could result in the exclusion of their evidence at the hearing.