HRTO 2009

The applicant filed a human rights application against the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, various individuals, and the Ontario Provincial Police.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

The Tribunal found that the allegations against the police respondents were barred by section 53(8) of the Human Rights Code because they duplicated a previous complaint filed with the Commission.

The allegations against Chris Bentley were dismissed for failing to disclose any discriminatory conduct.

Finally, the allegations against the Tribunal and its adjudicators were dismissed because adjudicative decisions do not constitute a 'service' under the Code.

The application was dismissed in its entirety for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging failure to accommodate and harassment based on disability.

The respondent requested dismissal under s. 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, arguing the applicant had already commenced a civil action for wrongful dismissal based on the same factual allegations.

The Tribunal found that the factual claims in the civil action were indistinguishable from the human rights application and that the remedies sought overlapped.

The application was dismissed as s. 34(11) requires applicants to choose a single forum to avoid duplicative litigation.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondent failed to file a Response within the required 35 days.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent of the consequences of failing to participate under Rule 5.5 of the Rules of Procedure.

The respondent was granted 10 days to file a Response and explain the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of race, sex, family status, and marital status regarding the administration of the Child Tax Benefit, specifically the right of a non-resident female spouse to file a waiver on behalf of her spouse.

The respondent requested early dismissal or deferral of the application.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application, finding it was not plain and obvious that the benefit administration was not a service, and that other court proceedings did not satisfy section 45.1 of the Code.

However, the Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application pending the conclusion of the applicant's ongoing appeal process with the Canada Revenue Agency.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

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 respond under Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, and granted the respondent 10 days to file a response along with an explanation for the delay.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment against Purolator Courier Ltd. and an individual respondent.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that the corporate respondent appeared to be a federally regulated business.

The applicant failed to provide written submissions on the issue.

Relying on established case law, the Tribunal found that Purolator is a federally regulated entity governed by the Canada Labour Code.

Consequently, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter, and the application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, and reprisal.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because the applicant had an outstanding grievance encompassing some of the same issues.

The Tribunal found it appropriate to defer the application pending the completion of the grievance process, noting the considerable factual overlap and the potential for the arbitration to determine some of the issues.

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

The respondents did not object to the request, and the intervenor made no submissions.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant filed a transitional application under section 53(5) of the Human Rights Code alleging discrimination in university hiring practices.

The respondents raised preliminary issues, including whether the applicant could include allegations of reprisal occurring in 2009, after the original 2008 complaint was filed with the Commission.

The Tribunal held that under Rule 12.3, a section 53(5) application must be based on the subject matter of the original complaint.

The Tribunal declined to exercise its discretion to permit the amendment, finding it unnecessary for the fair, just, and expeditious disposition of the original complaint.

The remaining preliminary issues, including timeliness, were deferred to an oral hearing.

The applicant filed an application alleging reprisal in employment by the respondents.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the application did not allege facts within the scope of section 8 of the Human Rights Code, such as attempting to claim or enforce rights under the Code.

The applicant failed to file written submissions in response to the NOID.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, as no basis for reprisal or any other ground of discrimination was provided.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex and family status after not being scheduled for work over the Christmas season.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code or deferred, arguing that a union grievance had appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The union requested intervenor status.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene and directed the union to provide further submissions regarding the status of the grievance before deciding on the dismissal or deferral requests.

The applicant sought to re-activate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of a union grievance regarding the same allegations of workplace discrimination and harassment.

The applicant withdrew his grievance specifically to proceed with the Tribunal application.

The respondents argued the application should remain deferred or be dismissed, asserting the grievance process was still available.

The Tribunal granted the request to re-activate, finding that adjudicative duplication was no longer an issue and the applicant was entitled to proceed before the Tribunal.

The applicant filed two human rights applications alleging sex discrimination and reprisals: one against her union and a fellow member, and another against her employer.

A Request for an Order During Proceedings was filed to have the two matters heard together.

The applicant consented, and the employer respondent did not respond.

The Tribunal found it reasonable to hear the applications together and ordered them consolidated for hearing.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the applicant's human rights application under section 45 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that a parallel proceeding was pending before the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (PHRC).

The respondent had filed a motion to dismiss the PHRC complaint for lack of jurisdiction over two years prior, which remained undecided.

The Tribunal dismissed the deferral request, finding that given the lengthy delay with neither jurisdiction considering the claim and no steps taken to pursue the PHRC matter, it would not be fair or just to defer the application any longer.

The applicant filed a transitional application under section 53(5) of the Human Rights Code regarding the accommodation of her special education needs.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed requests for orders.

The Tribunal restricted the scope of the application to events between September 2006 and September 2007, denying the applicant's attempt to include pre- and post-complaint events.

The Tribunal also denied the applicant's request to strike the respondents' late-filed responses and documents, finding no prejudice.

Case management directions were issued for the upcoming hearing.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw her application filed under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, 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 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 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 parties made a joint request to use the applicant's initials in all public documents and decisions to comply with the publication ban under section 110(1) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The Tribunal granted the request, ordering that the applicant's name be substituted with initials and that no identifying information be provided to anyone other than the parties, their counsel, or Tribunal staff.

The respondents filed a Request for Order during Proceeding seeking to clarify the subject matter of the human rights application.

They argued that a letter submitted by the applicant expanded the scope of the original complaint with untimely allegations dating back to June 2006.

The Tribunal found that the original complaint clearly referenced earlier complaints of discrimination, and the supplementary letter merely provided further details of those earlier complaints.

The request was dismissed, and the Tribunal noted that the respondents' request for dismissal on the basis of no prima facie case and abuse of process could be raised at the hearing.