HRTO 2008

The applicant filed two transitional applications under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code against her employer and her union.

The respondents raised preliminary objections, arguing the matters were resolved by settlement or dealt with by the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Tribunal directed that the applications proceed together and cancelled the scheduled mediation so that the preliminary issues could be addressed first.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the resolution of a related proceeding before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) or the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeal Tribunal (WSIAT).

The applicant opposed the deferral and objected to the respondent's disclosure of her confidential medical documents.

The Tribunal directed the parties to provide further submissions on the deferral request and the status of the WSIB/WSIAT proceeding before making a determination.

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

The respondents refused to participate in the scheduled mediation and failed to file a Response within the required time limits.

The Tribunal cancelled the mediation and issued case management directions, warning the respondents that failure to file a Response could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice to them.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission requested the production of various documents from the respondents prior to filing its hearing brief.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario denied the request, citing its previous decision in Washington v. Toronto Police Services Board.

The parties were directed to file their hearing briefs and provide disclosure in accordance with the Rules.

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 of the Rules of Procedure, and granted them a final extension to file a response along with an explanation for the delay.

The applicant filed a transitional application under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, and sought to amend the complaint to add record of offences.

The respondents refused to participate in the scheduled mediation and raised preliminary issues, including that the substance of the application had been dealt with in another proceeding.

The Tribunal exercised its discretion to cancel the mediation and directed the parties to file written submissions on the preliminary issues prior to scheduling a case resolution conference.

The applicant filed two applications under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, ethnic origin, and race against his employer, and against his union regarding its representation.

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

Pursuant to the Tribunal's Rules, the adjudicator ordered that the applications proceed together for the purposes of mediation to ensure a fair, just, and highly expeditious process.

The applicant filed an application alleging that the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act discriminates against him on the basis of age by terminating his benefits at age 65.

The respondents raised a jurisdictional issue, arguing that s. 2.1(1) of the WSIA explicitly exempts the Act from the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal amended the style of cause and directed the applicant to address the jurisdictional issue in his Reply before determining whether to dismiss the application.

The respondents requested that the human rights application be deferred pending the outcome of a scheduled grievance arbitration.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision setting a schedule for the parties and the union to provide written submissions on the request to defer.

The applicant filed an application under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code but failed to attend the scheduled mediation without providing an explanation or requesting a rescheduling.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision noting that failure to participate impedes the efficient processing of the application.

The applicant was ordered to provide a written explanation for his absence and confirm his intention to continue the proceeding by a specified date, failing which the application would be treated as abandoned.

The personal respondent, Fion Tran, sought to be removed as a party to the human rights complaint.

The Commission consented, noting that the corporate respondent, Tai Pan Vacation, acknowledged vicarious liability for her actions.

The complainant opposed the removal.

Applying the factors from Persaud, the Tribunal found that the corporate respondent acknowledged vicarious liability and there was no compelling reason to continue the proceeding against the personal respondent.

The Tribunal ordered that Fion Tran be removed as a party.

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

The Tribunal noted that the applicant was employed in OPG's Nuclear Division, which may be governed by the Canadian Human Rights Act rather than the provincial Code.

The Tribunal also noted a grievance was filed dealing with the same issues.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to file submissions on the jurisdiction and deferral issues before requiring a full response to the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on family status, claiming he was constructively dismissed because of his connection to his mother, the former Executive Director.

The applicant had also filed a parallel small claims court action arising from the same termination.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the application under section 45 of the Human Rights Code.

Given that the civil proceeding was nearing its conclusion and involved substantially the same underlying facts, the Tribunal deferred consideration of the human rights application pending the conclusion of the civil action.

The applicant filed a human rights application which involved facts that were also the subject of an ongoing union grievance.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer.

The applicant subsequently filed a request to defer the application pending the arbitration of her grievance, and the respondent agreed.

The Tribunal ordered the application deferred pending the outcome of the grievance.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

The respondent failed to file a response within the required 35-day period.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent that failure to file a response by a specified final deadline would result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and potentially deeming the respondent to have accepted all allegations.

The applicant filed an application relating to the special diet allowance under the Ontario Disability Support Program.

As over one hundred related complaints were already before the Tribunal proceeding under a lead case approach, the Tribunal ordered that no further steps be required in this application until a final decision is issued in the lead cases.

The applicant was directed to advise the Tribunal on how she wishes to proceed within 60 days of the final decision in the lead cases.

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

The respondent failed to file a response within the required timeframe after being served.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent that failure to file a response by a specified date could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming the respondent to have accepted all allegations.

The applicant filed a human rights application.

The respondent failed to file a Response within the required 35-day period.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent that failure to participate could lead to orders against them without further notice, and provided a final deadline to file a Response along with an explanation for the delay.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because a concurrent grievance had been filed on the applicant's behalf.

The respondents supported deferral but indicated they would challenge the arbitrability of the grievance because the applicant was a probationary employee.

The Tribunal held that deferral was not appropriate in these circumstances, as the respondents intended to challenge the arbitrator's jurisdiction to hear the grievance.

The respondents were ordered to file their Response.

The applicant filed two applications with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario: one alleging a breach of a settlement reached at the Commission, and another electing to abandon the complaint and apply to the Tribunal under section 53(3) of the Code.

The Commission advised that it had failed to formally approve the settlement under section 43 of the old Code and proposed that the applicant withdraw her section 53(3) application so the Commission could approve the settlement.

The Tribunal suspended the previous deadlines for submissions and directed the parties to provide their views on the Commission's proposed resolution.