HRTO 2008

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in the area of goods, services, and facilities.

The applicant also filed a request to expedite the proceedings.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate truly urgent circumstances requiring resolution in a particularly rapid manner compared to the regular process.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming harassment by co-workers.

The respondents and the applicant's union requested early dismissal of the application, arguing that the issues were already resolved through a grievance settlement containing a release, and alternatively, through a WSIB return-to-work agreement.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene and scheduled a preliminary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed based on the prior settlement, release, and WSIB involvement.

The applicants filed an Application for Contravention of Settlement under s. 45.9(3) of the Human Rights Code.

The respondents failed to file a Response within the required 14 days.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondents to file a Response within 10 days, along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice and deem the respondents to have accepted the allegations.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment on the basis of her record of offences and perceived disability.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant had also filed grievances under her collective agreement based on the same facts and issues.

Finding that the grievance process was still ongoing and that grievance arbitrators have the power to enforce human rights obligations, the Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application pending the conclusion of the grievances.

The applicant filed a human rights application.

The respondents filed a response asserting that the issues were barred by res judicata because the Ontario Labour Relations Board had already issued a decision on substantially the same issues under the Employment Standards Act.

The Tribunal, on its own initiative, cancelled the scheduled mediation and ordered the parties to provide written submissions and attend a case resolution conference to determine whether the application is barred under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code or the doctrine of res judicata.

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

The corporate respondent sought an amendment to correctly identify it as the Toronto Police Services Board, which the Tribunal granted.

The applicant requested that the application be deferred pending the outcome of related criminal proceedings.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to clarify which criminal charges he was referring to and set a schedule for the parties to provide written submissions on the deferral request.

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

The respondent failed to file a Response despite receiving notice.

The Tribunal deemed the respondent to have accepted all allegations and waived its right to participate.

The Tribunal also accepted the application despite it being filed outside the one-year limitation period, finding the delay was incurred in good faith due to the applicant's medical issues and that the respondent suffered no substantial prejudice.

A hearing was scheduled to allow the applicant to make oral submissions before final disposition.

In an interim decision regarding a human rights complaint, the respondents objected to the proposed testimony of two witnesses who were intended to testify about the prevalence of sexual jokes and comments by a supervisor in the workplace.

The respondents argued the evidence was irrelevant to the specific incident in question and did not meet the standard for similar fact evidence.

The adjudicator expressed a preliminary view agreeing with the respondents but invited the Commission to file written submissions before making a final determination.

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

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

Three applications were filed under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code involving similar parties, facts, and legal issues.

The Tribunal 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 under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondents failed to file their Response by the required deadline.

Following an earlier interim decision directing the respondents to file their Response and explain the delay, the respondents filed the Response, citing counsel error.

The Tribunal accepted the late Response.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of age, colour, ethnic origin, and race after being denied a job coach position.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred because a grievance arbitration concerning the same job selection process was already underway.

The Tribunal found that the substance of the human rights complaint was largely indistinguishable from the grievance and that the arbitration proceeding should conclude first.

The application was deferred pending the conclusion of the arbitration.

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

The respondent failed to file a Response within the required 35 days.

The Tribunal issued an Interim Decision warning the respondent that failure to file a Response within 5 days, along with an explanation for the delay, may result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming the respondent to have accepted all allegations.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision to clarify matters from a previous decision.

The respondents were ordered to file written submissions responding to the applicants' assertions that one of the respondents was in apparent good health, and to provide details of her hospitalization.

The Tribunal will then determine whether to advance the date of the Case Resolution Conference.

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

Following an unsuccessful mediation, both parties failed to comply with the Tribunal's directions to provide hearing availability, file witness lists, and make disclosure.

The Tribunal cancelled the scheduled case resolution conference due to the lack of pre-hearing disclosure.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to contact the Tribunal within 10 days with an explanation for her failure to comply with the Rules, failing which the application would be deemed abandoned and the file closed.

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

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

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

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in housing on the basis of disability and receipt of public assistance, claiming verbal harassment and improper eviction by the respondent landlord.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) had already dealt with the substance of the application by ordering eviction and dismissing the tenant's harassment claims.

The Tribunal directed that an oral hearing be scheduled to determine whether the application should be dismissed based on the LTB orders.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the corporate and personal respondents.

The personal respondent received an extension of time and filed a response.

The corporate respondent failed to file a response within the required timeframe.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the corporate respondent that failure to file a response by December 8, 2008, could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming the respondent to have accepted the allegations.

The applicant filed an application under s. 53(3) of the Human Rights Code alleging that the WSIB and its employees aided and abetted her employer in refusing to accommodate her disability by denying her loss of earnings benefits.

The respondents refused to participate in mediation and raised preliminary objections regarding the Tribunal's jurisdiction and whether the application disclosed a prima facie case.

The Tribunal exercised its discretion to cancel the scheduled mediation and directed the parties to file written submissions on the preliminary issues first.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent school board.

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 final deadline would result in the Tribunal proceeding without their participation, potentially deeming them to have accepted the allegations.