HRTO 2008

The applicant filed a transitional application under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code alleging the respondent failed to provide adequate funding and oversight for students with autism.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed on preliminary grounds, including a prior settlement agreement, res judicata, and abuse of process.

The Tribunal exercised its discretion to hear the preliminary issues before proceeding to the standard mediation process, ordering a schedule for written submissions and a case resolution conference.

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

The settlement was reached under the old Code, and a letter from the Commission indicated that its approval was not required.

However, section 54 of the amended Code states that section 45.9 applies to the enforcement of a settlement that was approved by the Commission.

The Tribunal raised a jurisdictional issue regarding its power to hear the application and ordered the Commission to file a statement of facts and the parties to provide submissions on the interpretation of section 54.

The applicants requested a revision of disclosure deadlines, alleging that a key witness for the respondent, who was reportedly hospitalized with a potentially fatal condition, was seen in good health distributing Halloween candy.

The Tribunal issued case management orders requiring the respondent to provide written submissions and medical documentation regarding the witness's hospitalization.

The Tribunal also established a procedure for the applicants to add personal respondents to the applications.

The applicant filed an application under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code alleging the respondent failed to provide accommodation required for the applicant to attend school.

The respondent raised preliminary issues including abuse of process and no prima facie case.

The Tribunal exercised its discretion to vary its standard process and ordered a schedule for written submissions on the preliminary issues prior to proceeding to the merits.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, seeking reimbursement for expenses incurred attending medical appointments under an attendance support program.

The Ontario Provincial Police Association requested to intervene to address potential deferral issues.

The Tribunal denied the intervention request as there were no deferral issues in the proceeding.

The Tribunal also directed the parties to attend an oral hearing to address the respondent's preliminary arguments regarding delay and whether the alleged facts establish a Code violation.

The complainant, a Black African man, alleged racial discrimination by the Toronto Police Services Board after being stopped while riding his bicycle and subsequently arrested for drug possession.

He claimed the initial stop was a pretext based on racial profiling and that he was physically assaulted by officers after fleeing.

The Tribunal found the police had a legitimate reason for the stop (no bicycle lights) and no ulterior motive.

The Tribunal also rejected the assault allegations, finding the complainant's injuries were consistent with a physical take-down after he attempted to flee.

The human rights complaint was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario under the transition provisions of the amended Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the Ontario Human Rights Commission had already dismissed the applicant's complaint prior to the effective date of the new provisions.

Consequently, the complaint was not a 'continued complaint' within the meaning of section 53(3) of the Code.

The Tribunal concluded it had no jurisdiction and dismissed the application.

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

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

The applicant sought to defer the processing of his human rights application due to a serious medical condition.

The respondents did not provide submissions.

The Tribunal granted the deferral, cancelling deadlines for disclosure and case resolution conferences until the applicant is fit to resume.

However, noting that the respondents had failed to file a Response, the Tribunal ordered them to file their Response within 10 days to avoid delay once the applicant is ready to proceed, warning of potential consequences under Rule 3.2 for failure to participate.

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

The respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the outcome of a concurrent grievance.

The Tribunal previously directed the applicant to provide submissions on the deferral request, but received none.

Noting that the applicant may not have received the prior decision in time, the Tribunal issued an interim decision extending the deadline for the applicant to provide submissions by 14 days.

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

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed or deferred because the applicant had commenced a civil action based on the same facts.

The Tribunal exercised its discretion to vary its usual rules and ordered the parties to provide written submissions on whether the application is barred by section 34(11) or should be deferred under section 45 of the Code.

The applicant requested to amend the style of cause to reflect the correct legal name of the respondent, Angel Gate Bingo, which the Tribunal granted.

The respondent failed to file a response to the application or attend a scheduled mediation.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondent to file a response within 10 days with an explanation for the delay, warning that failure to do so could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice under Rule 3.2.

The respondents brought a motion to dismiss the human rights application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, or on the basis of abuse of process or issue estoppel, relying on a prior decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The Tribunal held a Case Resolution Conference and orally denied the motion to dismiss, with written reasons to follow.

The Tribunal directed the parties to proceed with the next steps in the process, including the exchange of additional facts and relevant documents.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the human rights application on the basis that it was outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction and failed to establish a prima facie case.

The respondent requested that the motion be heard prior to the scheduled case resolution conference.

The Tribunal declined to hear the motion in advance, directing that the motion to dismiss be considered by the adjudicator at the case resolution conference.

The complainant, a student with ADHD, alleged that the school board discriminated against him by denying him access to special education accommodations.

The complainant sought to add the Ministry of Education as a respondent, arguing that the Ministry's definitions of exceptionalities and failure to assist contributed to the discrimination.

The Tribunal granted the request in part, finding that there were sufficient allegations that the Ministry's standards for exceptionalities may have acted as a barrier to accommodation, but rejected the other theories of liability.

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

The respondent refused to participate in the scheduled mediation and requested that the application be dismissed or deferred, arguing that two ongoing civil actions between the parties arose from the same circumstances.

The Tribunal exercised its discretion to control its process, cancelled the scheduled mediation, and ordered the parties to provide written submissions on whether the application is barred by section 34(11) of the Code or should be deferred under section 45.

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

The respondents failed to attend a scheduled mediation, alleging they had not received the application and that one personal respondent no longer worked for the corporate respondent.

The Tribunal ordered the corporate respondent to provide contact information for the personal respondent and directed the parties to provide submissions on whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to deal with the application as a continued complaint.

The applicant filed six separate applications under section 34 of the Human Rights Code against various respondents regarding alleged accessibility deficiencies in his condominium building.

Two respondents requested early dismissal, arguing the applicant had filed parallel complaints with the Ontario Human Rights Commission based on the same facts.

The Tribunal refused the request, finding the respondents had confused the filing of multiple Tribunal applications with the filing of Commission complaints.

The Tribunal ordered the applications to proceed together for the purposes of mediation.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent municipality.

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

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent of the consequences of failing to participate under Rule 5.5, and provided a final deadline to file a Response and explain the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The respondents requested early dismissal under section 45.1, arguing the substance of the application had been dealt with by the Employment Standards Branch, or alternatively deferral pending an Ontario Labour Relations Board appeal.

The applicant withdrew the appeal and opposed early dismissal.

Because both parties expressed interest in mediation, the Tribunal deferred the early dismissal request and referred the matter to mediation.