HRTO 2008

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

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed or deferred, arguing that the substance of the application was already being dealt with in other proceedings, including an OHSA complaint and WSIB claims, and that the application was untimely.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision scheduling an oral hearing to address these preliminary issues.

The applicant, a labour relations officer, sought an interim remedy exempting him from travel to accommodate his family status, citing his spouse's high-risk pregnancy and their special needs child.

The respondent union requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending an ongoing grievance process under the collective agreement.

The Tribunal deferred the application, noting the availability of expedited arbitration under the Labour Relations Act, and declined to grant interim relief while the matter was deferred.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the grounds of race, place of origin, creed, and age.

The respondents requested early dismissal of the application under section 53(8) of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the applicant had previously filed a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission regarding the same subject matter, which was settled and withdrawn.

The applicant argued he signed the settlement under duress and misapprehension.

The Tribunal found that the application was barred under section 53(8) because its subject matter was substantially the same as the prior withdrawn complaint, and noted that an application under section 34 is not the proper forum to challenge the validity of the settlement.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondents.

The respondents 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 respondents that failure to file a Response by January 9, 2009, could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice to them and deeming them to have accepted the allegations.

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

The respondents requested that the application be deferred because an ongoing labour arbitration proceeding concerned the same subject matter.

The Tribunal cancelled the scheduled mediation and ordered the parties to provide written submissions on whether the application should be deferred pursuant to section 45 of the Code.

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation for his human rights application.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant did not contact the Tribunal to reschedule, despite claiming to have sent an email.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide a written explanation for his absence and a clear statement of his intent to continue the proceeding by a specified date, failing which the application would be treated as abandoned.

The applicant filed an application under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code and subsequently refused to participate in mediation.

The Tribunal noted that while a refusal to attend mediation may impede efficient processing and warrant a case management direction to attend, this application could be processed expeditiously without such attendance.

The Tribunal directed the parties to proceed to the next step, preparing for a case resolution conference, and set deadlines for the exchange of additional facts, remedies sought, and arguably relevant documents.

The applicant sought leave to withdraw his application filed under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code against Elections Ontario and John L. Hollins.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

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

The applicant requested an order to add Trent University as a respondent.

As the personal respondent and Trent University consented, and the applicant sought remedies against the university, the Tribunal granted the request and added Trent University as a respondent pursuant to section 36 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging the respondent school board failed to accommodate his disability between 2001 and 2003.

The application was filed in 2008, nearly five years after the last incident.

The Tribunal considered whether to accept the late application under section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code.

Finding no reasonable explanation for the delay by either the adult applicant or his mother acting as his litigation guardian, the Tribunal concluded the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The application was dismissed as out of time.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission requested a reconsideration of an interim decision that dismissed portions of a human rights complaint on the basis of abuse of process, as the matters had already been dealt with by the Special Education Tribunal.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the Commission failed to establish any of the threshold criteria for reconsideration under Rule 102, and that the request amounted to re-arguing issues already decided.

The applicant filed an application under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code and subsequently refused to participate in the scheduled mediation.

The Tribunal cancelled the mediation and issued a case management direction, ordering the parties to exchange documents and prepare for a case resolution conference in accordance with the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race and colour by the Mayor of Toronto.

The respondent requested dismissal of the application.

After the applicant failed to respond to an Interim Decision requesting submissions on how the allegations related to the respondent and the Code, the Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, finding it did not raise matters the Tribunal had the power to decide.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission referred 57 additional complaints regarding the special diet allowance to the Tribunal.

The Tribunal ordered that these new complaints be subject to the same 'lead case' procedure previously established for over 100 similar complaints, suspending further steps until a final decision is issued in the lead cases.

The applicants filed applications under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal noted that these applications were identical to two earlier applications involving the same respondents, except for the identity of the applicants.

To ensure a fair, just, and highly expeditious process, the Tribunal directed that all four applications proceed together for the purposes of mediation.

The applicants requested to advance the date of a case resolution hearing scheduled for April 2009, questioning the respondents' assertion that a serious illness prevented their attendance at an earlier mediation.

The Tribunal reviewed medical documents submitted by the respondents and found that the respondent was hospitalized for a potentially serious medical situation on the date of the mediation.

Satisfied that the medical situation was substantiated, the Tribunal denied the applicants' request to advance the hearing date.

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

The respondent failed to file a Response within the 35-day period required by the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent of the consequences of failing to respond under Rule 5.5, and provided a final deadline of December 23, 2008, to file a Response along with an explanation for the delay.

The respondents requested early dismissal of the human rights application under s. 45.1 of the Code, arguing the substance was appropriately dealt with by the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC).

The IPC had previously dismissed the applicant's complaint regarding the disclosure of personal information to her son.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss, finding that while some facts were relevant, the IPC decision did not address the allegations of discrimination set out in the application.

The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the application because the matter was the subject of a union grievance referred to arbitration.

The Tribunal found that deferral was the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed, as the grievance raised largely the same facts and issues, and the labour arbitrator had the authority to interpret and apply the Human Rights Code.

The application was deferred pending the conclusion of the grievance.

The applicant filed a human rights application against his former employer and ten co-workers.

Responses were filed by the corporate respondent and eight personal respondents.

One unrepresented personal respondent filed an incomplete response, and another filed no response.

The Tribunal found that the application and filed responses provided sufficient information to proceed to mediation and directed the Registrar to schedule it, warning the non-responding respondents of the consequences of failing to file a complete response.