HRTO 2008

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

The respondents raised preliminary objections, arguing the application was untimely, partially settled, and should be deferred pending an arbitration proceeding.

The Tribunal exercised its discretion to address the preliminary objections and request to defer prior to the scheduled mediation.

The mediation was cancelled, and a schedule was set for the parties to file submissions on the preliminary issues.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in job competitions in 1995 and 1996, and naming multiple respondents including government ministries, the OLRB, the Ombudsman, and OPSEU for their subsequent handling of his complaints.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing a preliminary hearing to address jurisdictional issues, including whether the application is barred by previous Commission complaints, the one-year time limit, the existence of other proceedings, and the lack of specific allegations of discrimination against several respondents.

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

The respondents requested the application be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the corporate respondent operates a trucking business between Ontario and the United States and is therefore a federal undertaking subject to the Canadian Human Rights Act.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the applicant to provide written submissions on the jurisdictional issue.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of creed.

The respondents filed a Request for Order to dismiss the application for delay, while the applicant requested amendments and particulars.

Because both parties expressed a willingness to mediate, the Tribunal deferred deciding the contested preliminary issues until after mediation.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to amend the application on consent.

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

The Tribunal found that several personal respondents had not been properly served and ordered the applicant to serve them.

The Tribunal also ordered that the two applications proceed together given the similar facts.

Finally, the Tribunal granted the respondents' request to hear preliminary objections regarding delay, abuse of process, and jurisdiction prior to mediation, cancelling the scheduled mediation date.

The Tribunal considered whether two separate human rights applications involving the same workplace and parties should be heard together.

One applicant alleged sexual solicitation by a co-worker, while the other alleged sexual harassment and reprisal by the first applicant and the employer.

The Tribunal ordered the applications to be heard together, finding significant overlap in facts and issues, and concluding that a joint hearing would be the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed.

The respondents requested a deferral of the human rights application pending the outcome of a scheduled arbitration on the same subject matter, and requested that the applicant's union be given notice of the proceedings.

The Tribunal found that mediation would be more productive if the union was given notice and invited to attend.

The Tribunal directed that notice of the mediation be delivered to the union.

The respondent filed its response after the deadline set by the Tribunal's Rules.

In a previous interim decision, the Tribunal addressed the failure to respond.

The respondent subsequently provided submissions explaining that a delivery error occurred and that the response was sent prior to the deadline.

The Tribunal accepted the explanation and ordered that the response be accepted and processed.

The applicant filed an application alleging age discrimination and reprisal against her employer and union.

The respondents requested deferral pending an OLRB duty of fair representation complaint, and the union requested dismissal for lack of a prima facie case.

The Tribunal found it unclear whether the application disclosed a prima facie case or if deferral was appropriate, and scheduled an oral hearing to address both issues.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that the respondent lawyer's cross-examination and closing arguments during a murder trial were discriminatory.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the parties to provide written submissions on whether the allegations fall within the social area of 'goods, services and facilities' under section 1 of the Human Rights Code, before determining whether to defer the application pending the criminal appeal.

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

Due to scheduling conflicts and delays in setting a mediation date, the Tribunal exercised its discretion to cancel the mediation and directed the parties to prepare for a case resolution conference to ensure the application is processed expeditiously.

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

The respondents requested early dismissal, arguing the underlying complaint was untimely and subject to a signed release.

The Tribunal directed the parties to file written submissions on the early dismissal request prior to proceeding with the scheduled mediation.

The complainant, alleging racial discrimination during a police stop while riding his bicycle, sought production of various documents from the respondent police services board.

The Tribunal ordered the non-party Chief of Police to produce dispatch logs, use of force reports, and records of other cyclists stopped by the involved officers in the week prior to the incident, finding them arguably relevant.

Requests for records of other incidents involving the complainant and general police database searches were dismissed as irrelevant.

The applicants filed multiple applications alleging reprisals by the respondents.

The applicants refused to complete section 6 of the application form or the supplemental forms, arguing that reprisal does not require a specific ground of discrimination.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal held that while the forms generally require completion, in these unique circumstances, the applicants would not be required to complete section 6 or the supplemental forms, provided they answer specific questions about the alleged complaints and investigations.

The Tribunal also ordered the applicants to provide details of the remedies sought, removed unidentified respondents, and added the hospital as a respondent.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment and vocational association membership, claiming he was dismissed or demoted over workplace harassment allegations used as a pretext.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant did not link the events to any protected ground under the Human Rights Code or explain how the alleged reprisal related to claiming Code rights.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the applicant to provide submissions within 30 days explaining how the application raises matters within the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant filed two applications with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario regarding a human rights complaint previously settled at the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

The first application alleged a breach of the settlement, and the second sought to abandon the Commission complaint and proceed before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal noted potential jurisdictional issues, as the settlement was not formally approved by the Commission and the obligations were allegedly unfulfilled.

The Tribunal ordered the Commission to provide a statement of facts regarding the settlement's status and directed the parties to provide written submissions on the Tribunal's jurisdiction to hear the applications under the transitional provisions of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed an application under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code against the respondent school board and several individuals.

The applicant's union requested to intervene, seeking to dismiss or defer the application pending the outcome of an arbitration on the same matter.

The Tribunal found the union's request to intervene premature under the Tribunal's Rules.

However, the Tribunal noted that the deferral issue raised a serious question and ordered the parties to provide written submissions on whether the application should be deferred pending the grievance proceeding.

The applicant filed two applications under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code against different respondents, setting out virtually identical allegations.

The Tribunal ordered that the applications proceed together for mediation and case resolution conference to ensure a fair, just, and highly expeditious process.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled mediation until January 2009 because he was unexpectedly called to Germany to care for a terminally ill family member and handle subsequent estate issues.

The respondents consented to the adjournment but noted potential prejudice from fading memories.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment and rescheduled the mediation for February 2, 2009, directing the applicant to advise if he returns earlier.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the facts of the application were part of an ongoing union grievance.

The respondent supported deferral, noting two outstanding grievances.

The Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application pending the conclusion of both grievances, as the applicant did not identify any circumstances to depart from the Tribunal's normal approach of deferring applications with ongoing grievances based on the same facts.