HRTO 2009

The applicant filed a request to add two individual respondents to her human rights application, alleging they were employees of the corporate respondent who participated in the alleged Code breaches.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that under section 53(3) of the Code, applications must be based on the subject-matter of the original complaint, and Rule 5.15 requires exceptional circumstances to add parties.

The applicant provided no explanation for the delay or why the individuals were not named in the original complaint, failing to establish exceptional circumstances.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on race and colour.

The respondents requested early dismissal under s. 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, claiming a civil action had been filed, and under s. 45.1, arguing the substance was being dealt with in an ongoing child protection proceeding.

The Tribunal dismissed the s. 34(11) request due to lack of evidence of a civil claim.

The Tribunal denied the s. 45.1 request as premature because the child protection proceeding was still ongoing, without prejudice to the respondents renewing the request once that proceeding concluded.

The Tribunal also amended the respondent organization's name.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment.

The respondents claimed the respondent organization is a federally regulated undertaking and the application should be dismissed.

The applicant requested that the Tribunal defer the application until his parallel complaint under the Canadian Human Rights Act is resolved.

The Tribunal directed the respondents to make submissions on the deferral request.

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

The respondent made no submissions on the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw her human rights application.

The respondents made no submissions.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant filed a request for an interim remedy seeking wage payments pending the resolution of her human rights application.

The Tribunal declined to consider the request because it was procedurally deficient, filed on the wrong form, lacked sworn declarations, and the applicant had failed to confirm her availability for a case resolution conference.

The Tribunal directed the parties to confirm their availability for a case resolution conference and permitted the applicant to renew her request at that time if done in accordance with the proper rules.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment based on disability, specifically focusing on the employer's failure to provide an appropriate ergonomic chair.

The respondents filed an incomplete Response, requesting early dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code on the basis that the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) had exclusive jurisdiction over the issues.

The Tribunal denied the request for early dismissal, finding that the WSIB process had not appropriately dealt with the substance of the human rights application, and ordered the respondents to file a complete Response.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination because he was required to submit to a driving test upon reaching 80 years of age.

The respondent Ministry of Transportation argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because s. 19(1) of Regulation 340/94 under the Highway Traffic Act explicitly states that the testing requirement applies despite the Human Rights Code, as permitted by s. 47(2) of the Code.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the applicant to provide written submissions on the threshold jurisdictional issue.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in a men's hockey league.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision addressing three preliminary issues: the personal respondents' failure to file Responses, the applicant's delay of nearly two years and eight months in filing the application, and the League's representation.

The Tribunal directed the personal respondents to file Responses within 10 days, scheduled a teleconference to hear submissions on whether the delay was incurred in good faith under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, and directed the League to identify its authorized representative.