HRTO 2009

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

In advance of a case resolution conference, the applicant objected to the respondents' failure to provide witness evidence summaries, and the respondents objected to the introduction of medical reports without the authors present for cross-examination.

The Tribunal directed the respondents to provide witness summaries in accordance with the newly amended Rules of Procedure, and directed the parties to file written submissions regarding the necessity of cross-examining the medical practitioners.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in services on the basis of race, ancestry, sex, and sexual orientation regarding his arrest and detention by police.

He also filed a Request to Expedite Proceedings.

The Tribunal reviewed the materials and found no basis to conclude that the circumstances were truly urgent, as required by Rule 21.1 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The request to expedite was denied.

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

The respondents argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the allegations did not disclose a Code breach.

The Tribunal noted that the underlying complaint was dated September 9, 2008, after the Ontario Human Rights Commission ceased accepting complaints on July 1, 2008.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide submissions explaining when the complaint was filed with the Commission to determine if it had jurisdiction.

In an interim decision regarding a human rights complaint alleging racial discrimination in a school transfer and suspension, the adjudicator ruled on the admissibility of expert evidence and student records.

The respondents sought to introduce expert evidence from a forensic document examiner regarding alleged erasures on the complainant's chemistry exam.

Applying the Mohan test, the adjudicator found the expert evidence inadmissible as it was not necessary to assist the trier of fact.

The adjudicator also directed that written permission must be provided for the admission of documents forming part of any student's Ontario Student Record, pursuant to section 266(2) of the Education Act, failing which the documents would be struck from the record.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sex discrimination in employment against the respondents.

She subsequently requested an order to add Loblaws Inc. as a respondent, arguing that Loblaws was responsible for the selection process for a training program from which she was rejected.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant failed to allege facts that, if proven, could support a finding that Loblaws violated her rights under the Code, as there was no allegation that Loblaws' refusal to select her was based on her sex.

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

The underlying complaint was undated, unsigned, and lacked a Commission file number, raising questions about whether it was properly filed before the transition deadline.

The respondents also requested deferral pending the resolution of the applicant's grievances.

The Tribunal ordered the Commission to provide information on the status of the complaint and directed the parties to file written submissions on both the jurisdictional and deferral issues.

The applicant filed two human rights applications alleging discrimination in employment by his former employer on the basis of disability, and by his trade union for failing to represent him.

The Tribunal directed that the applications proceed together due to similar facts and legal issues.

The union raised a preliminary issue that the complaints were barred by a prior settlement.

The Tribunal issued case management directions for the parties to provide written submissions on whether the applications are barred under section 34(11)(b) or should be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant, who alleges discrimination in services on the basis of disability regarding access to public transit, sought production of notes taken by members of the Mobility Plus Eligibility Appeal Panel and materials relied upon by the Panel.

The Tribunal denied the request for the Panel members' notes, finding them not arguably relevant to whether the decision or criteria were discriminatory.

However, the Tribunal ordered the respondent to produce any other documents or materials considered by the Appeal Panel that had not already been provided to the applicant.

The respondents requested an extension of time to file their Response and asked that the human rights application be deferred pending the completion of two related grievance arbitrations.

The Tribunal directed the parties to file written submissions on whether the application ought to be deferred under section 45 of the Human Rights Code, and granted the respondents 20 days to file their Response.

In an interim decision regarding a human rights complaint alleging discrimination and harassment based on ethnic origin, the Tribunal addressed case management issues, an amendment to the complaint, and the admissibility of an expert witness.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to amend the complaint to add the ground of creed, finding no prejudice to the respondents.

However, the Tribunal excluded the Commission's proposed expert witness on racism and Islamophobia, applying the Mohan criteria.

The Tribunal found the proposed evidence was within the adjudicator's knowledge and that the expert had improperly formed conclusions on the ultimate issues to be decided.

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

The respondent filed its Response, declined to attend mediation, and requested reconsideration of a prior interim decision denying its request for particulars.

The Tribunal found the reconsideration request moot and issued case management directions requiring both parties to exchange additional facts, particulars, and arguably relevant documents, and to schedule a Case Resolution Conference.

The complainant and the Commission requested production of documents relating to complaints filed by the complainant under the Police Services Act.

The Toronto Police Association requested leave to intervene to make submissions on the production of these documents.

The Tribunal granted the request to intervene, finding it appropriate given the potential impact on the Association's members and its ability to provide their perspective.

The respondents brought a preliminary request to dismiss the human rights application under s. 45.1 of the Code, arguing the substance had been dealt with through a union grievance and a WSIB decision, or alternatively for lack of timeliness.

The Tribunal found that the withdrawal of a grievance and multi-party meetings did not constitute a 'proceeding' under s. 45.1.

The WSIB decision was prospective and did not deal with the substance of the complaint.

The Tribunal also found the application was timely as it alleged a series of incidents continuing up to the filing date.

The preliminary requests were dismissed and the matter was directed to proceed to a hearing on the merits.

The applicant filed human rights applications alleging discrimination on the basis of disability arising from statements and orders made by judges and justices of the peace.

The Tribunal previously directed the parties to provide written submissions on preliminary issues, including whether complaints about the judiciary are properly the subject matter of the Human Rights Code and whether adjudication constitutes a 'service'.

Finding the written submissions insufficient to decide the preliminary issues, the Tribunal directed a one-day oral hearing and ordered the two related files to be heard together.

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

The Tribunal issued an interim decision to identify the proper respondents.

The Tribunal held that only parties named in the original complaint to the Commission are parties to the application.

As the Ministry of Education, Gerry Connolly, and Sheila Ward were not named in the original complaint, they are not properly respondents.

The applicant was directed to provide written submissions if seeking to add parties under Rule 5.15.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the proceedings for over six months because its chosen counsel was on maternity leave.

The respondent argued this was a Code-related accommodation.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the issue was primarily about choice of counsel rather than accommodation.

Given the counsel's limited involvement to date and the availability of other lawyers at the same firm, the Tribunal held that a lengthy adjournment would unfairly prejudice the applicant's right to an expeditious hearing under section 53(4) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant, an 87-year-old condominium owner, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing based on age and disability after the respondent refused to allow him to use an unapproved patio door as a safe egress.

The applicant requested an expedited hearing under Rule 21, citing his age and life expectancy.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant failed to explain why his age created an urgency warranting expedited proceedings or how a refusal would adversely affect his life expectancy, though the Registrar was directed to schedule early hearing dates.

The applicant, a teacher, filed a human rights application alleging a course of harassment by the respondent school board and individual respondents.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred pending the outcome of an ongoing grievance arbitration dealing with the same issues, and that parts of the application be dismissed for delay or because they were resolved by prior settlements.

The Tribunal deferred the application, finding that the grievance arbitration was dealing with indistinguishable facts and issues and should be allowed to conclude first.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss any parts of the application for delay or abuse of process at this preliminary stage, noting that the respondents could renew those requests if the application is re-opened after the arbitration.

The applicant filed a human rights application and a parallel Employment Standards Act claim regarding her termination.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the parties to provide submissions on whether the human rights application should be deferred pending the outcome of the ESA proceeding.

The Tribunal also ordered the applicant to produce relevant doctor's notes and earnings records, and ordered the Director of Employment Standards to produce a copy of the applicant's ESA claim.

The applicant requested that the respondent employer provide the last known addresses of the individual respondents so she could serve them with the Application.

The employer refused without a Tribunal order.

The Tribunal ordered the employer to provide the addresses within five days and gave the applicant 30 days to serve the individual respondents, failing which the Tribunal would consider removing them as parties.