HRTO 2009

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to lift a deferral of her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the outcome of an Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) hearing regarding her Employment Standards Act complaint.

The applicant offered to adjourn or withdraw her OLRB application if the Tribunal would proceed with her human rights application.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the OLRB proceeding had not yet concluded and the Tribunal does not provide orders based on hypothetical facts or reconsider interim decisions.

The application remains deferred.

The respondent requested a last-minute adjournment of a three-day hearing due to illness, supported by advice from Telehealth Ontario.

The applicants opposed the request, alleging the illness was fabricated and citing inconvenience.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding illness to be an extraordinary circumstance warranting an adjournment and noting no reason to doubt the respondent's claim at this time.

The respondents requested an interim order restricting the applicant from circulating a witness statement obtained during a prior grievance arbitration and from sending allegedly harassing emails to public servants.

The Tribunal found it lacked clear authority to enforce an implied undertaking or a Grievance Settlement Board order from another proceeding, as the nexus to the current human rights application was unclear.

Noting that the underlying grievances had concluded, the Tribunal directed the parties to provide submissions on whether the application should be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Code or for abuse of process.

The applicant's mother filed human rights applications on behalf of her adult son, who has severe developmental disabilities, alleging discrimination by his care home and the Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT).

The respondents raised a preliminary issue regarding the mother's standing to act as litigation guardian.

The Tribunal found that because the PGT had been appointed full guardian of the person by a court order, only the PGT could act as the applicant's litigation guardian for these applications.

The Tribunal directed the PGT to advise how it wished to proceed.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming he was terminated due to alcohol and drug addiction.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to dismiss because the application appeared to be filed out of time and involved the same subject-matter as a previously abandoned complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

The applicant did not provide submissions.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction under section 53(8) of the Human Rights Code because the subject-matter was substantially the same as the prior Commission complaint.

The applicant filed a transitional application under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code alleging age discrimination regarding changes to a post-retirement benefits policy.

In his statement of additional facts, the applicant relied on events that occurred after the original complaint was filed.

The Tribunal ruled that under the transitional provisions, the subject matter of the application must relate to the original complaint, and therefore post-complaint events cannot form part of the present application.

The applicant was advised he could file a fresh application under section 34(1) for the subsequent events.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging failure to accommodate his disability and workplace harassment following a workplace reorganization.

The respondents brought a request to dismiss the application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matters had been appropriately dealt with in a prior grievance arbitration proceeding.

The Tribunal found that the accommodation issues were substantively resolved through settlements and an arbitration decision in the prior proceeding, and dismissed that portion of the application.

However, the Tribunal allowed the harassment allegations to proceed, as they had not been addressed in the grievance process.

The parties brought requests for orders during proceedings in a human rights application alleging sexual harassment and reprisal.

The Tribunal removed the personal respondents from the proceeding, finding no compelling reason to continue against them as the corporate respondent accepted vicarious liability.

The Tribunal declined to strike the sexual harassment allegations for delay, finding they were timely or filed in good faith pending an internal investigation.

The Tribunal also denied the respondents' request for particulars but ordered the respondents to produce investigator notes and recommendations to the applicant.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment and named her employer's counsel and the grievance arbitrator as individual respondents.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss regarding these individuals.

The Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction over opposing counsel, as a lawyer representing an adverse party in an arbitration is not providing a service to the applicant.

The Tribunal also found it lacked jurisdiction over the arbitrator, as adjudicative decisions are not considered services under the Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed against the lawyer and the arbitrator, but proceeded against the remaining respondents.

The respondents requested an early dismissal or deferral of the human rights application, arguing that the applicant had filed numerous grievances touching on the same issues.

The Tribunal found that it lacked sufficient information regarding the status of the grievances and scheduled a half-day hearing to determine the request.

The applicant's union requested to intervene in the proceedings.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene, noting that the remedies sought by the applicant raised issues of general interest to the bargaining unit, with the extent of participation to be determined by the presiding adjudicator at future proceedings.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination based on family status and disability.

The institutional respondent and one personal respondent filed for bankruptcy, triggering a stay of proceedings against them under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The remaining personal respondent requested that the Tribunal refuse to proceed against him until the applicant had the stays lifted.

The Tribunal denied the request, holding that the BIA stays only apply to the bankrupts, and directed the parties to advise if they intend to seek to lift the stays.

The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination and reprisal by the respondents.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to dismiss because the Application did not indicate how the alleged conduct related to the applicant's right to be free of reprisal under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant failed to provide written submissions in response.

The Tribunal dismissed the Application for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the applicant alleged general unfairness and corruption without linking the mistreatment to a Code ground or an attempt to enforce Code rights.

In a transitional application under the Human Rights Code, the respondent requested that the hearing be extended to five days to accommodate an expert medical witness, given a pending preliminary issue regarding delay.

The Tribunal declined to extend the hearing dates, finding it fair and expeditious to bifurcate the hearing of liability from the issue of remedy.

The Tribunal directed that the respondent was not required to bring its expert witness to the first day of the hearing, though parties were required to bring their remaining witnesses.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of race, colour, sexual orientation, and age by the Toronto Police Service during two police stops.

The applicant brought a request to add the Toronto Police Services Board (TPSB) as a respondent and for the production of documents.

The Tribunal found that the TPSB is a proper respondent, as it can be held liable for the actions of individual police officers under section 46.3(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal also ordered the Chief of Police to provide a formal response to the applicant's request for the production of documents.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, specifically regarding the use of sick leave for medical appointments and a request for reduced work hours.

The application was previously deferred pending a policy grievance.

Following the resolution of the grievance, the applicant requested to reactivate the application and sought an interim remedy to implement her requested accommodations.

The Tribunal reactivated the application but denied the interim remedy, finding that the limited medical evidence provided did not justify the extraordinary step of ordering interim relief prior to a full hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred because the applicant had initiated three concurrent grievances based on the same facts and human rights issues.

The Tribunal found that the grievances were proceeding to arbitration and that the arbitrator had the authority to deal with the human rights issues.

Applying its normal approach to concurrent proceedings, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance and arbitration process.

The Tribunal also granted the applicant's unopposed request to remove two individual respondents.

The applicant filed a human rights application and subsequently requested to withdraw the application against the union and amend the application to change the area of alleged discrimination from contracts to employment.

As the requests were unopposed, the Tribunal granted both requests.

The applicant filed a human rights application and noted an outstanding union grievance relating to the same subject matter.

The Tribunal Registrar incorrectly indicated that the respondent requested a deferral and invited submissions, but none were received.

The Tribunal directed the applicant, respondent, and the union to provide submissions on whether the application should be deferred pending the resolution of the grievance.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding alleging disability discrimination requested production of communications, medical evidence, and meeting minutes from the respondent union.

The union produced most documents but claimed solicitor-client privilege over notes taken in anticipation of litigation.

The applicant argued he had waived privilege, but the Tribunal held that the union, not the applicant, was the client.

The Tribunal denied the request for production, noting it cannot order disclosure of privileged documents under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The respondent requested an early dismissal of the human rights application under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, arguing that a civil claim based on the same facts had been filed.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that it had already addressed and dismissed this issue in a previous interim decision because the civil claim did not seek damages for a Code violation.

The Tribunal then requested written submissions from the parties on whether the application should be deferred pending the conclusion of the civil suit.