HRTO 2008

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

The Tribunal scheduled a mediation, but the respondent refused to participate.

The Tribunal cancelled the mediation and issued a case management direction setting out the timeline for the parties to file their responses, statements of additional facts, and arguably relevant documents in preparation for a case resolution conference.

The respondents brought a motion to strike disability-related allegations from the complainant's human rights complaint and sought production of medical and financial documents.

The Tribunal struck the disability-related allegations, finding they did not form part of the subject matter of the proceedings.

The Tribunal denied the respondents' request for documents relating to the disability claim as irrelevant, and denied the request for medical and financial information as premature given the bifurcated hearing.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to produce portions of personnel records relating to the remaining allegations.

In an interim decision, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario considered whether it had jurisdiction over an application under the transitional provisions of the Human Rights Code.

The respondents argued that the Commission's submissions regarding when a complaint is considered 'filed' contradicted its own published statements.

The Tribunal ordered an oral hearing to determine the jurisdictional issue and directed the Commission to provide a further statement of facts explaining the apparent contradiction.

In a human rights complaint, the parties raised preliminary issues regarding document disclosure, requests for particulars, and a motion to strike portions of the pleadings.

The Tribunal scheduled a half-day hearing to address all preliminary requests together and issued directions for the parties to file their respective positions and materials.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability following his dismissal from employment.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that a Workplace Safety and Insurance Board Appeals Resolution Officer (ARO) decision had already dealt with the substance of the application.

Alternatively, the respondent requested deferral pending the applicant's appeal of the ARO decision to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT).

The Tribunal found the dismissal request premature as the ARO decision was not final, but directed the applicant to provide submissions on the deferral request in his Reply.

The applicant filed a human rights application while also having commenced a civil court action pleading a violation of the Human Rights Code and seeking damages.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision ordering the parties to provide submissions on whether the application is barred by section 34(11) of the Code before requiring the respondent to file a formal response.

The applicant, a hospital patient awaiting long-term care placement, requested interim orders to restrain the hospital from taking legal action against him or his attorneys, and to stay proceedings before the Consent and Capacity Board and the Public Guardian and Trustee.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding the Consent and Capacity Board matters were moot and there was no evidence that the Public Guardian and Trustee investigation or the hospital's actions would affect the Tribunal's process.

The Tribunal also denied the request to anonymize the applicant's name, as no strong reasons were provided to override the open hearing principle.

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

The respondents argued the application should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, as the corporate respondent operates a trucking business between Ontario and the United States, making it a federal undertaking.

The applicant failed to file requested submissions on the issue.

The Tribunal found the corporate respondent to be a federal undertaking subject to the Canadian Human Rights Act and dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 13.1.

The respondent requested to defer the human rights application until two grievance arbitrations filed by the applicant's union were concluded.

The grievances dealt with the same subject matter as the application, which alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The Tribunal found that deferral was appropriate as there were ongoing grievances based on the same facts and issues, and ordered the deferral of the application pending the conclusion of both grievances.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination based on sex (pregnancy) and submitted a Request to Expedite Proceedings.

The respondents did not object to the request, and both parties agreed to engage in mediation.

The Tribunal directed that mediation be scheduled as soon as possible and deferred ruling on the request to expedite until after mediation, should the matter not settle.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a conference call scheduled to hear preliminary issues, citing insufficient notice.

The request was unopposed and granted by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal issued directions for the rescheduled conference call, including timelines for document disclosure, case law exchange, and raising challenges to the substitute decision-maker's authority.

The applicant filed an application under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code and named a personal respondent who was not part of the original complaint.

The Tribunal ruled that the personal respondent could not be added at this stage, as applications must be based on the original complaint's subject matter.

Furthermore, because the respondent had not been served with the application and had a scheduling conflict, the Tribunal adjourned the scheduled mediation and directed the applicant to serve the respondent.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in contracts based on citizenship, creed, sex, family status, and age.

The respondent filed a response arguing the matters raised do not involve human rights issues.

Finding the allegations vague and lacking a clear connection to the identified Code grounds, the Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide written submissions explaining how the alleged treatment relates to the prohibited grounds of discrimination and falls within the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

Three applications were filed under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code alleging age discrimination in employment.

The respondents raised preliminary objections that the substance of the applications had been dealt with in grievance arbitrations.

The Tribunal found that the applications involved substantially similar facts and legal issues, and ordered that they proceed together for the purposes of mediation.

The Tribunal issued an interim case management decision regarding the procedure for hearing expert and medical evidence in the lead cases concerning the special diet allowance.

The Tribunal ordered that expert evidence-in-chief be provided in writing, with cross-examination to take place before a court reporter rather than during the oral hearing, to ensure a fair, just, and expeditious resolution.

The complainant, a key employee with a heart condition, went on short-term disability due to adverse reactions to medication.

While on leave, the employer assumed he would not return to his position and hired permanent replacements without adequately inquiring into his medical prognosis or discussing accommodation options.

The Tribunal found the employer failed in its procedural and substantive duty to accommodate the complainant's disability.

Furthermore, the employer's subsequent refusal to provide the complainant with corporate financial information regarding his shareholdings, motivated by anger over his human rights complaint, constituted an unlawful reprisal.

The Tribunal awarded $30,000 for injury to dignity and $124,000 for lost wages.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on race and colour in accommodation and services.

The respondent, identified as the mayor of Toronto, filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking dismissal or further particulars.

The Tribunal found that the application did not connect the respondent to the allegations or explain how they related to the Code.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide written submissions explaining the basis of the discrimination claims and the Tribunal's jurisdiction before requiring the respondent to file a Response.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

The respondent requested early dismissal on the basis that another proceeding had appropriately dealt with the substance of the application, and also raised the issue of delay.

Additionally, the respondent objected to the applicant's reliance on documents disclosed in a civil action commenced by her brother.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the Registrar to schedule an oral hearing to determine these preliminary issues.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario issued an interim decision regarding two consolidated complaints involving the complainant, the Ontario Human Rights Commission, and the respondents.

The decision addressed whether prior procedural rulings by the Tribunal Chair precluded the complainant from advancing certain issues, including adding the Commission and its Legal Director as respondents, alleging abuse of process, and requesting that her original complaint be heard due to an alleged breach of settlement.

The Adjudicator found that the prior decisions were not final determinations on these substantive issues, as they primarily dealt with procedural matters or were made when the complainant was not yet a party.

Consequently, the complainant was permitted to proceed with her requests, and a schedule for further submissions was established.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw his human rights application filed under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondent consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.