HRTO 2008

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

The Tribunal noted that over one hundred related complaints had been referred and a lead case approach was being used.

The Tribunal ordered that no further steps in the application would be required until the final decision in the lead cases, consistent with its procedure in similar applications.

The applicant filed a human rights application regarding the special diet allowance under the Ontario Disability Support Program and requested a deferral pending her appeal before the Social Benefits Tribunal.

The Tribunal directed that no further steps be required in the application until the final decision in related lead cases, consistent with the procedure applied to over one hundred similar complaints.

The Registrar was directed to serve the application on the respondent.

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

The Tribunal scheduled a mediation, but the respondents advised they did not want to participate.

The Tribunal cancelled the mediation and issued case management directions for the parties to exchange documents and prepare for a case resolution conference.

During a pre-hearing conference call, the complainant requested an order requiring the Commission to clarify its intentions regarding its participation in the hearing and to provide her with legal counsel.

The Tribunal declined to hear oral submissions on the issue during the call, finding it procedurally unfair without full preparation.

The Tribunal ordered the Commission to advise by November 21, 2008, whether its position on participation had changed, and directed the complainant to file a formal request for an order with written submissions if she wished to pursue the matter further.

The applicant sought to withdraw his human rights application filed under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code against the respondent school board.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

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

The Tribunal scheduled a mediation, but the respondents advised they would not attend and provided no reason.

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

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

The application indicated that a complaint based on the same facts had been previously filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission and closed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the parties and the Commission to provide submissions and a statement of facts on whether the application is barred by section 53(8) of the Code.

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

The Tribunal issued an interim decision seeking submissions from the parties and the Commission on whether the application is barred under section 53(8) of the Human Rights Code, which prohibits applications if the subject-matter is substantially the same as a complaint filed under the old Part IV.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code naming an individual respondent with an incorrect surname.

The corporate respondent acknowledged employing an individual with the same first name.

The Tribunal ordered the corporate respondent to provide the correct surname and contact information for the employee pursuant to Rule 1.7(p) of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure to allow the application to be properly served.

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

The applicant subsequently withdrew the application with leave of the Tribunal.

The applicant requested to expedite the hearing of her human rights application pursuant to Rule 21 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The Tribunal reviewed the written submissions from the applicant, the respondents, and the Elementary Teachers of Toronto.

Relying on previous jurisprudence, the Tribunal denied the request, finding that the circumstances were not so particularly urgent as to distinguish them from other cases before the Tribunal.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment against United Parcel Service.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that the respondent appeared to be a federally regulated business.

The applicant provided written submissions opposing the dismissal.

The Tribunal held that it was not plain and obvious that the matter fell under federal jurisdiction, and directed that the application continue and be served on the respondent and the applicant's union.

The applicant requested reconsideration of an interim decision that denied his request to expedite the matter.

The Tribunal denied the request for reconsideration, noting that under Rule 26.1 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, reconsideration is only available for final decisions.

The previous decision was not final, and the new information provided did not establish urgency.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that the respondent appeared to be a federally regulated business.

The applicant did not make submissions.

The Tribunal held that an application will only be dismissed at this stage if it is plain and obvious that the matter falls under federal jurisdiction.

Finding that this test was not met, the Tribunal directed that it would continue to deal with the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that portions of the provincial Income Tax Act constitute discrimination on the basis of age.

The Tribunal initially issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting that the respondent appeared to be a federal entity.

After reviewing the applicant's written submissions clarifying that the challenge was directed at Ontario's income tax regime, the Tribunal concluded it was not plain and obvious that the matter fell under federal jurisdiction.

The Tribunal directed that the application continue.

The complainant, a student with autism spectrum disorder and a developmental disability, alleged that the school board discriminated against him by failing to accommodate his disability.

The school board brought a preliminary objection, arguing that the issues raised in the human rights complaint had already been decided by the Special Education Tribunal (SET) and should be dismissed based on issue estoppel, abuse of process, and s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario found that while issue estoppel did not apply because the parties were not identical, proceeding with the complaint would be an abuse of process as it would permit re-litigation of issues already decided by the SET.

The Tribunal also found that s. 45.1 of the Code applied, as the SET proceeding appropriately dealt with the substance of the matters in dispute.

The Tribunal dismissed the portions of the complaint that had already been decided by the SET.

The applicant sought to withdraw her human rights application filed under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code against the respondent.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant filed an application under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code and requested an interim remedy to have her case expedited, citing a four-year delay since filing her original complaint with the Commission and resulting financial hardship.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that while the applicant's frustration was understandable, there were no particular indications of urgency to justify expediting the Tribunal's already highly expeditious process, especially given that a mediation was already scheduled for October 2008.

The applicant filed a human rights application regarding the special diet allowance under the Ontario Disability Support Program and requested that scheduling be deferred until lead cases on the same issue were heard.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer, and no submissions were received.

The Tribunal suspended all requirements for further steps in the matter until after the lead cases are decided.

The applicant filed a human rights application against his former employer, the Public Service Alliance of Canada, and several of its employees.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that the employer appeared to be federally regulated.

After reviewing the applicant's written submissions, the Tribunal concluded it was not plain and obvious that the matter fell under federal jurisdiction and directed that the application be processed, without making a final determination on jurisdiction.