HRTO 2009

The applicant requested leave to withdraw her human rights application 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The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.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 applicants, former employees of the corporate respondent, alleged discrimination on the basis of age and disability following a corporate downsizing and the provision of severance packages.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed case management issues.

The applicants withdrew their applications against the personal respondents.

The Tribunal ordered the bifurcation of the proceedings to deal with liability separately from remedy, noting the significant preparation required for remedial claims, including actuarial evidence for pension losses.

Timelines for disclosure and witness statements were also established.

The applicant, a university student with learning disabilities, filed an application alleging discrimination in education services after the university denied her request for an Educational Assistant.

She also filed a Request to Expedite Proceedings.

The respondents consented to expediting but requested early production of medical documents.

The Tribunal denied the Request to Expedite, finding no imminent loss of educational opportunity or other urgent circumstances.

Consequently, the Tribunal also dismissed the respondents' request for early document production as premature.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the human rights application pending a parallel grievance arbitration concerning the same allegations of failure to accommodate.

The Tribunal noted that while it generally defers applications where there is an ongoing grievance, the union had advised the applicant that the grievance had no prospect of success and adjourned it sine die.

Finding that the union did not intend to proceed with the grievance, the Tribunal concluded it would not be fair to defer the application and dismissed the deferral request.

The respondents sought to dismiss a transitional human rights application, arguing it was filed after the June 30, 2009 statutory deadline.

The applicant had filed an incomplete application form prior to the deadline but failed to attach the original Commission complaint or deliver it to the respondents until September 2009.

The Tribunal held that an application is 'made' if sufficient material is filed by the deadline to indicate an intention to apply.

Exercising its discretion under Rule 4.3, the Tribunal relieved against the strict application of the filing rules, noting the respondents had been aware of the complaint since 2006.

The request to dismiss the application was denied.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code or deferred pending a grievance arbitration.

The Tribunal previously issued an interim decision directing the union to provide information, noting the applicant had not filed submissions.

Upon discovering the applicant had in fact filed submissions, the Tribunal reviewed them but concluded that the information from the union was still necessary.

The previous directions were confirmed.

The respondents sought to dismiss the application on the basis that it was filed after the June 30, 2009 statutory deadline for transitional applications under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant had filed the wrong form prior to the deadline, but subsequently filed the correct form after being notified by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal exercised its discretion to waive the strict application of its Rules, finding that the applicant had filed sufficient material before the deadline to indicate an intention to make a transitional application.

The request to dismiss the application was denied.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled Case Resolution Conference due to the recent death of her mother and related medical issues.

The respondents opposed the adjournment, citing concerns about the future availability of two witnesses no longer employed by the corporate respondent.

The Tribunal found that the medical information constituted exceptional circumstances justifying an adjournment, but determined that a five-month delay was not required or fair to the respondents.

The adjournment was granted, with new dates to be scheduled potentially before the applicant's requested date of May 2010.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing to obtain medical documents, identify witnesses, and secure new counsel after his previous counsel withdrew.

The respondent opposed the adjournment and requested an order for particulars and disclosure, noting the applicant had failed to comply with the Tribunal's rules.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, finding no extraordinary circumstances to justify it, as the reasons cited were entirely within the applicant's control.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to immediately comply with his disclosure obligations, failing which he may be prevented from introducing evidence at the hearing.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw their human rights application filed under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondent made no submissions on the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex and family status regarding her termination.

She had previously commenced a civil action for wrongful dismissal based on the same factual circumstances, alleging her termination was due to her pregnancy.

The Tribunal held that section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code barred the application because the civil proceeding sought remedies for an alleged Code infringement arising from the same facts, even though the Code was not explicitly pleaded in the civil action.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in services and sexual harassment by her real estate agent.

The respondent argued the application should be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code because the applicant had previously filed a complaint with the Real Estate Council of Ontario (RECO).

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application, finding the respondent failed to establish that RECO had appropriately dealt with the human rights substance of the complaint.

On the merits, the Tribunal found that the respondent made a single, sexually explicit and demeaning comment directed at the applicant.

The Tribunal held that this single comment constituted gender discrimination in the provision of services under s. 1 of the Code, and awarded the applicant $300 in general damages.

The applicant filed human rights applications alleging sex discrimination in employment and contracts.

The respondents requested early dismissal under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance was dealt with by a church hearing committee.

The respondents also raised jurisdictional issues regarding delay and subject-matter.

The Tribunal had scheduled a joint mediation.

The respondents requested that the preliminary issues be adjudicated prior to mediation.

The Tribunal declined, noting its practice is to hold mediation first when parties consent, and directed the respondents to confirm whether they still wished to participate in mediation.

The complainant and the Commission brought a Request for Order During Proceedings to add further officers as personal respondents.

Following discussions, the Chief of Police undertook to accept liability in the event any liability is found against the named or proposed officers.

Consequently, the parties agreed to withdraw the request, remove all named individual respondents, and add the Chief of Police as a respondent.

The Tribunal ordered the style of cause amended accordingly.

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

After previously amending the ground of discrimination to disability, the applicant requested an order to amend the application to seek additional financial and public interest remedies.

The respondent did not oppose the request but had delayed filing its response due to confusion over the deadline.

The Tribunal granted the amendment, finding no prejudice to the respondent at this early stage, and directed the respondent to file its response within 14 days.

The applicant, a paramedic, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability after being terminated for failing to recertify.

The respondents requested early dismissal under s. 45.1 of the Code, arguing the matter was appropriately dealt with in a prior grievance arbitration.

The applicant sought to amend his application to include allegations regarding a learning disability.

The Tribunal granted CUPE's request to intervene and directed that the requests for early dismissal and amendment be heard at an oral hearing, as required by s. 43(2) of the Code.

The respondents requested production of the applicant's WSIB file and hospital records relating to his hand surgery.

The applicant alleged he was harassed and terminated after taking a leave of absence for a WSIB injury, while the respondents alleged he abandoned his employment.

The Tribunal found the requested records were arguably relevant to the applicant's capacity to work and ordered the applicant to request and produce them to the respondents.

The applicant filed a transitional application with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario on the June 30, 2009 deadline, but delivered it to the respondents at 5:09 p.m. that day.

The respondents argued the application was barred because it was deemed received the next day, meaning it was not delivered prior to filing as required by the Tribunal Rules.

The Tribunal exercised its discretion to waive the strict application of the Rules, finding the application was 'made' within the statutory deadline.

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

The respondent did not object.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant filed an application under section 53(5) of the Human Rights Code based on a complaint previously filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

The respondent argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the Commission had already dismissed the complaint and denied reconsideration.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that because the Commission had finally disposed of the complaint prior to the application, there was no continued complaint upon which the application could be founded.

The application was dismissed.