HRTO 2009

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to defer the human rights application pending the outcome of a Family Court trial between the applicant and his former spouse.

The respondent did not oppose the deferral but questioned its relevance and argued the application should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal denied the deferral request, finding that the facts and issues in the Family Court trial and the human rights application were entirely different.

The Tribunal directed the parties to advise whether they consent to a telephone hearing.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment and services, along with a Request to Expedite Proceedings.

Because the application appeared to be filed more than one year after the last alleged incident, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

The applicant submitted that the delay was due to awaiting the outcome of an internal university investigation.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision scheduling a teleconference to hear oral submissions from the parties on whether the application should be dismissed for delay and whether the request to expedite should be granted.

The applicants, through their litigation guardian, filed human rights applications alleging discrimination on the basis of family status after the respondent school refused to enroll them.

The respondent requested dismissal of the applications under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the litigation guardian had already commenced a civil action against the respondent's principals based on the same factual dispute.

The Tribunal found that the civil proceeding dealt with the same allegations and subject matter, and that allowing the applications to proceed would result in duplicative litigation.

The applications were dismissed.

The applicant filed transitional applications with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario regarding complaints previously filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

The respondents argued that one of the applications was barred because it was not properly filed by the statutory deadline of June 30, 2009.

The Tribunal exercised its discretion to relieve against the strict application of its Rules, finding that the applicant had filed sufficient material prior to the deadline to indicate an intention to make the application.

The Tribunal also requested submissions from the parties on whether the applications should be deferred or barred due to a concurrent civil action for wrongful dismissal.

The respondent alleged that the applicant breached an undertaking to treat Tribunal staff and parties with respect and courtesy.

The Tribunal reviewed the applicant's correspondence and found that he had breached the undertaking by making insulting, offensive, and bizarre comments about the respondent, its counsel, and the Tribunal.

The Tribunal requested written submissions from the parties on the appropriate consequences, including whether the application should be dismissed or stayed.

The respondents brought a preliminary request to remove personal respondents and clarify the subject matter of the human rights application.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's supplementary affidavit merely provided further particulars and did not improperly expand the application.

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal removed one personal respondent who acted solely in the course of her employment, but declined to remove another personal respondent who was alleged to have personally threatened the applicant, as a specific finding of liability for reprisal could be made against him.

The respondents requested an extension of time to file their Responses to a human rights application alleging sex discrimination, sexual solicitation, and reprisal.

The respondents argued that the union was in the midst of referendum elections, making it difficult to interview necessary witnesses.

The Tribunal granted the extension, noting the far-reaching allegations, the involvement of potential witnesses in the election process, and the lack of prejudice to the applicant.

The applicant filed a transitional application with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario near the statutory deadline of June 30, 2009.

The respondents argued the application was barred because it was not properly delivered to all respondents, specifically the corporate respondent's contact person and a former employee, prior to the deadline.

The Tribunal exercised its discretion to waive the strict application of its Rules regarding delivery, finding that sufficient material was filed with the Tribunal by the deadline to indicate an intention to make an application, and the respondents had notice of the complaint.

The Tribunal ruled the application was made prior to the statutory deadline.

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

After failing to attend a scheduled mediation, the Tribunal sent a letter warning the applicant that failure to respond within ten days would result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant did not respond.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on family status and association.

On the first day of the hearing, the Tribunal addressed several preliminary issues.

The Tribunal ordered the exclusion of non-party witnesses but denied requests to exclude children from the hearing room and to impose a publication ban regarding prior settlement minutes.

The Tribunal also removed the individual respondents from the proceeding, finding no compelling reason to keep them as parties.

Finally, the Tribunal ordered both parties to produce requested documents, including the applicant's financial and medical records, and the respondents' statistical information and exclusion letters.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of creed, and requested an expedited process and an interim remedy to be posted to a different position due to ongoing workplace harassment.

The Tribunal denied the request to expedite, finding the circumstances did not meet the high threshold for urgency.

Regarding the interim remedy, the Tribunal noted the respondent had not filed a response and ordered the respondent to either consent to the requested posting or file a response to the request.

The applicant filed an application under the transitional provisions of the Human Rights Code based on a 2007 complaint alleging workplace harassment and over-monitoring due to disability.

In a statement of additional facts, the applicant attempted to add new allegations, including post-complaint events.

The Tribunal ruled that under the transitional provisions, the subject matter of the application must relate to the original complaint.

The attempt to expand the scope was rejected, though the Tribunal noted the applicant could file a fresh application for the new allegations.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision dismissing her human rights application, arguing that the adjudicator improperly relied on hearsay evidence and failed to give proper weight to her documentary evidence.

She also sought to introduce new character evidence and requested that the decision be anonymized.

The Tribunal denied the reconsideration request, finding it was an attempt to re-argue the case and appeal the findings.

The Tribunal also denied the anonymization request, noting it was untimely and did not meet the high threshold of involving extremely private personal information.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission requested an order to add the Mental Health Centre Penetanguishene Corporation as a respondent to a human rights complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of colour and race.

The Tribunal granted the request on consent, noting the entity had become a distinct legal corporation since the complaint was filed.

The Tribunal also set a timetable for the exchange of mediation briefs.

The applicant filed an application alleging workplace harassment and discrimination based on disability and age.

At the hearing on the merits, the respondents moved for a non-suit after the applicant's case.

The Tribunal dismissed all allegations for failing to establish a prima facie case, except for one allegation regarding exclusion from a training course due to age.

The parties subsequently resolved the remaining training issue, and the Tribunal dismissed the application in part and declared it finally disposed of.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, disability, family status, and age.

The corporate respondent sought early dismissal of the application, arguing that the applicant had signed a full and final release upon termination of her employment.

The applicant contended that she signed the release under duress and did not understand it.

The Tribunal directed that a preliminary hearing be scheduled to determine whether the application should be dismissed on the basis of the release, as section 43(2) of the Code requires an opportunity for oral submissions before final disposition.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment more than one year after her termination.

She argued the delay was in good faith because she expected her union to address the human rights issues in her grievance.

The Tribunal found the delay was not incurred in good faith, as the applicant knew by July 2008 that the union was not advancing discrimination claims but waited another seven months to file the application.

The application was dismissed for delay.

The applicants, who self-identify as Black and of Dominican descent, alleged they experienced racial discrimination when they were barred from the respondent restaurant.

The respondent claimed the denial of service was due to an incident where one applicant yelled at a server, and a subsequent perception that he was intoxicated.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's inappropriate behaviour and the owner's snap judgment regarding intoxication were the actual reasons for the denial of service.

Finding no link between the respondent's actions and the applicants' race, the Tribunal dismissed the applications.

The Greater Toronto Transit Authority (GO Transit) brought a request to be removed as a respondent to an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

Bombardier Inc. confirmed it was the applicant's employer at all material times.

The applicant, who had recently died, consented to the request through counsel.

The Tribunal granted the request to remove GO Transit as a respondent and directed the applicant's brother to provide documentation confirming his authority to act for the applicant's estate.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in contractual relations against a law firm, one of its lawyers, and a Tribunal Member.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal recuse itself from hearing the application.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing a half-day hearing to receive submissions on the recusal request and on whether the allegations fall within the Tribunal's jurisdiction over contractual relations under the Human Rights Code.