HRTO 2008

The applicant filed an application with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario after previously submitting a complaint to the Ontario Human Rights Commission based on the same facts.

The Commission had closed the file before formally accepting it as 'filed' because the applicant agreed to withdraw it and file directly with the Tribunal under the new transition rules.

The Tribunal held that section 53(8) of the Human Rights Code did not bar the application because the complaint was never formally 'filed' with the Commission according to its own processes.

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

A mediation was scheduled, but the applicant wrote to the Tribunal refusing to participate due to his health condition and requested to proceed directly to a hearing.

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

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

A mediation was scheduled, but the respondents wrote to the Tribunal declining to participate.

The Tribunal cancelled the mediation and issued a case management direction, ordering the parties to exchange documents and statements of facts in preparation for a case resolution conference.

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

The respondents requested that the scheduled mediation be postponed pending their submissions that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction, asserting there was no employment relationship under the Health Insurance Act.

The Tribunal cancelled the mediation and directed that the jurisdictional issue be dealt with as a preliminary issue at a case resolution conference, setting a schedule for the delivery of statements of additional facts and documents.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to properly serve two personal respondents and ordered her to do so within 30 days.

The served respondents requested early dismissal, arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the Ontario Human Rights Commission had already decided not to refer the complaint.

The Tribunal cancelled the scheduled mediation and ordered the parties to provide written submissions on the jurisdictional issue.

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

The respondents asserted that the complaint was not continued within the meaning of the Code because the Ontario Human Rights Commission had previously decided not to refer the subject matter to the Tribunal under section 36(2) of the old Code.

The Tribunal ordered the parties to provide additional information and written submissions on the jurisdictional issue.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and requested an expedited proceeding based on an agreement to return her to work in a new department.

The corporate respondent and the applicant's union opposed the request.

The Tribunal found no basis to conclude the circumstances were urgent compared to the regular process and denied the request to expedite.

The applicant filed two transitional applications under the Human Rights Code alleging discrimination in employment.

The first application related to the failure to assign a full-time presiding appointment, and the second related to the failure to indemnify for legal costs.

The Tribunal ordered that the applications proceed together to ensure a fair and expeditious process, and issued case management directions regarding preliminary objections and a future case resolution conference.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision cancelling a scheduled mediation after the respondents advised they would not attend.

The Tribunal noted that outstanding jurisdictional issues must be determined before any further steps are taken.

The applicant brought an ex parte Request for Order During Proceedings seeking extensive relief affecting the respondent hospital, the Public Guardian and Trustee, and the Consent and Capacity Board.

The Tribunal denied the request to proceed ex parte, finding that the applicant provided no reasons to justify proceeding without notice and concluding it would be unfair to determine the issues before other parties had a chance to make submissions.

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

The respondents requested an adjournment of the scheduled mediation but subsequently filed a response agreeing to mediation without providing reasons for the adjournment.

The Tribunal found the adjournment request abandoned and directed the mediation to proceed as scheduled.

The Tribunal deferred the personal respondent's request to be removed from the proceeding to the mediation.

The Tribunal also noted the respondents' difficulties in delivering documents to the applicant and warned that delivery could be deemed effected if service was being avoided.

The respondents requested the dismissal of human rights complaints against the employer and the union under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the complaints was appropriately dealt with in a settled duty of fair representation application before the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB).

The Tribunal found that the OLRB settlement appropriately dealt with the substance of the complaint against the union, as the same facts and allegations of discrimination were raised and resolved.

However, the Tribunal declined to dismiss the complaint against the employer, finding that the OLRB proceeding could not adjudicate the employer's alleged failure to accommodate, and the settlement did not express an intention to resolve the underlying human rights issues with the employer.

The Tribunal also struck out new allegations raised by the Commission that were not part of the original complaints.

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

After the Tribunal scheduled a mediation, the applicant indicated he would not miss work to attend, and the respondent offered to meet on evenings or weekends, which the Tribunal does not accommodate.

The Tribunal cancelled the mediation and issued case management directions requiring the parties to exchange documents and statements of fact in preparation for a case resolution conference.

The applicant filed human rights applications against two separate employers, alleging discrimination on the ground of 'record of offences' after being terminated due to pending criminal charges.

The respondents raised a preliminary jurisdictional issue, arguing that 'record of offences' under the Human Rights Code requires a conviction, not merely pending charges.

The Tribunal directed that the applications be considered together to determine this discrete jurisdictional issue and deferred the applicant's requests for an interim remedy for lost wages until the jurisdictional question is resolved.

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

The respondents sought early dismissal under section 45.1, arguing the matter was appropriately dealt with in another proceeding, and objected to mediation because the applicant's trade union had exclusive bargaining authority.

The Tribunal exercised its discretion to cancel the scheduled mediation, directed that notice of the proceeding be given to the trade union, and established a schedule for submissions on the preliminary request for early dismissal.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the City of Ottawa (OC Transpo).

The respondent filed a request to dismiss the application, arguing that it is a federal undertaking because its transit services extend beyond the Ontario border, making it subject to the Canadian Human Rights Act.

The Tribunal found that binding appellate authority established the respondent as a federal undertaking.

As there was no evidence to the contrary, the Tribunal concluded it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the application.

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

The applicant requested to add the Ministry as a party, which the Tribunal denied because the Ministry was not named in the original Commission complaint and no exceptional circumstances existed.

The Tribunal also raised a jurisdictional issue on its own initiative, noting the Commission had previously dismissed the underlying complaint.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide submissions on whether the application constitutes a continued complaint under section 53(3).

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

A mediation was scheduled, but the respondents subsequently refused to participate and requested a case management meeting instead.

The Tribunal cancelled the mediation and issued a case management direction setting timelines for the parties to exchange additional facts, requested remedies, and arguably relevant documents in preparation for a case resolution conference.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability regarding a medical leave request.

The respondent sought to dismiss the application or defer it pending an outstanding grievance concerning the same matters.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the parties to provide submissions on whether consideration of the application should be deferred until the grievance is resolved.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

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

The Tribunal issued an interim decision noting the failure to respond and warning the respondent of the potential consequences under Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The Tribunal granted the respondent a final opportunity to file a response by October 16, 2008, along with an explanation for the delay.