HRTO 2009

The complainant, who has a severe brain injury, alleged that the respondent family physician discriminated against him on the basis of disability by refusing to accept him as a new patient.

The respondent maintained that she refused the complainant because his mother expected her to make house calls, a service she does not provide to any patients.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's refusal was based entirely on the expectation of house calls and not on the complainant's disability.

The Tribunal also rejected the argument that the respondent's new patient interview process was inherently discriminatory.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicant, a student with an identified exceptionality, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability after the respondent private school expelled him.

The applicant filed a Request for an Interim Remedy seeking reinstatement and a Request to Expedite.

During a teleconference, the applicant's mother advised she was no longer seeking permanent reinstatement but needed time to find an alternative school, which the respondent agreed to accommodate.

The Tribunal found the interim remedy request moot but ordered an in-person case conference to address the request to expedite given the potential impact on the student's well-being.

The applicant sought to amend her human rights application to add family status as a ground of discrimination, alleging she was prevented from registering for a soccer club as a reprisal for her parents' previous complaints.

The respondents objected to the amendment and sought to transfer the matter to Part IV of the Code, as well as to remove an individual respondent and the reprisal ground.

The Tribunal allowed the amendment to add family status, finding no prejudice to the respondents, and dismissed the respondents' preliminary requests, directing that the remaining issues be addressed at the case resolution conference.

The applicant filed a transitional application under s. 53(3) of the Human Rights Code based on a 2006 complaint alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

In December 2008, the applicant sought to amend the application to add a new ground of discrimination based on age.

The Tribunal dismissed the request to amend, noting that the new ground would require a new factual foundation and cause delay.

Under the Transitional Application Rules, preliminary requests to add grounds are not normally entertained unless necessary to ensure a fair, just, and highly expeditious process.

Given the unexplained delay of over two years, the Tribunal found the amendment was not necessary and rejected the request.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw her human rights application after the parties reached a settlement.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

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

The Tribunal issued an interim decision identifying outstanding preliminary issues, including whether the applicant could amend the complaint, whether notice should be given to the school board, whether a prima facie case was established, and the effect of prior jurisprudence on the Ministry's liability.

The Tribunal set a schedule for the delivery of written submissions on these issues.

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 requested leave to withdraw his application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondent agreed to the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw her human rights application against the respondents pursuant to Rule 10 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondents made no submissions.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sex discrimination and sexual harassment in employment.

The applicant's union, the Canadian Union of Skilled Workers, brought a request to intervene as an observer with the ability to make submissions on remedy.

The respondent opposed the intervention.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the union had a significant interest in the outcome and any remedial orders, and that its limited participation would not unduly delay or prejudice the proceedings.

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

The Tribunal noted that the Ontario Human Rights Commission had previously decided not to refer the underlying complaint to the Tribunal.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision ordering the applicant to provide information regarding whether she had sought reconsideration of the Commission's decision, and ordering the respondent to provide submissions on whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to deal with the application.

The applicant requested an order to amend their human rights application to include the ground of disability and incorporate additional representations.

The respondents objected, citing prejudice due to the passage of time, and raised jurisdictional and limitation period issues.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, finding no apparent prejudice at this early stage, and deferred the respondents' jurisdictional and timeliness arguments to be addressed in their formal Response.

The applicant filed two transitional applications under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code against his former employer and his trade union, alleging discrimination on the basis of sex, sexual solicitation, and reprisal regarding the termination of his employment.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing that the applications proceed together for the purposes of mediation.

The Tribunal also issued case management directions regarding the proper service of certain individual respondents and set a schedule for submissions on the respondents' preliminary requests to dismiss the applications.

The applicant, a former Justice of the Peace, filed human rights applications alleging discrimination in employment.

Prior to a Case Resolution Conference to determine preliminary issues, the applicant requested an order for the production of documents.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate how the requested documents were relevant to the preliminary issues, and noted that some requests were in the nature of discovery questions or raised issues of solicitor-client privilege.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment.

The application indicated that a civil action had already been commenced based on the same facts, claiming bad faith damages for the alleged Code violation.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the parties to provide submissions on whether the application is barred by section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code.

The respondent in a human rights complaint regarding alleged discrimination based on Aboriginal ancestry requested particulars about the complainant's specific Aboriginal ethnic group and moved to strike portions of the Commission's hearing brief.

The Tribunal ordered that if the Commission intends to present evidence of connection to a specific Aboriginal community, it must identify that community.

The Tribunal also struck several paragraphs of the hearing brief that related solely to events at other work placements, finding them irrelevant, while retaining others that were potentially relevant to the respondent's knowledge of the complainant's ancestry.

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

In a prior interim decision, the Tribunal directed the respondent to deliver a response.

The respondent attempted delivery by registered mail, but it was returned as unclaimed.

The Tribunal issued further case management directions, indicating it would forward the material to the applicant by regular mail and setting deadlines for the delivery of additional facts and arguably relevant documents.

The applicant filed an application alleging she suffered reprisal when the respondents decided not to rehire her after she raised health and safety concerns and complained about her supervisor.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to link the alleged reprisal to any attempt to enforce her rights under the Human Rights Code, nor did she allege discrimination on any prohibited ground.

As the application did not raise a violation of the Code, it was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by his ex-wife's lawyer and law firm.

The applicant requested to expedite the proceedings, which the Tribunal denied for failing to demonstrate true urgency.

The respondents requested preliminary dismissal, arguing the substance was identical to a prior complaint dismissed by the Ontario Human Rights Commission and the Law Society of Upper Canada.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide submissions on whether the application is barred by section 53(8) or section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

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

The Tribunal scheduled a mediation, but the respondents wrote to the Tribunal refusing to participate.

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