HRTO 2009

The respondent requested to defer an application alleging discrimination in employment on the ground of disability, arguing that it was contemplating an appeal of a recent Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) decision regarding the applicant's work-related injury.

The Tribunal dismissed the deferral request, finding that because an appeal was only being contemplated, there was no current legal proceeding underway that would justify deferring the application.

The Tribunal directed the matter to mediation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by a Children's Aid Society and its employees regarding court-ordered affidavits prepared in a custody dispute involving her great-nephew, and the Society's failure to investigate her concerns.

The respondents raised a preliminary issue that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the respondents were not providing a 'service' to the applicant within the meaning of section 1 of the Human Rights Code.

The services, if any, were provided to the child and his parents or guardians, not the applicant, meaning there was no Code-protected relationship between the parties.

The applicant filed human rights complaints against his employer and union regarding severance pay.

The employer brought a request to dismiss the transitional applications, arguing they were filed after the June 30, 2009 statutory deadline.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had filed sufficient material prior to the deadline to indicate his intention to make an application, and exercised its discretion to relieve against the technical requirements of the Rules regarding delivery to the respondents.

The Tribunal also ordered that the applications against the employer and union be processed together.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging the respondent discriminated against her by refusing to fully accommodate her disability-related needs during the Law School Admission Test (LSAT).

The respondent requested early dismissal, arguing the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction because it is a US-based corporation and all accommodation decisions are made in Pennsylvania.

The Tribunal ordered both parties to provide further written submissions on the jurisdictional issue, specifically directing them to address a relevant British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal decision.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal.

The respondent Ontario March of Dimes brought a request for an order during the proceeding to dismiss the application against it for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was not in a service, contractual, employment, or tenancy relationship with the Ontario March of Dimes, and that the simple act of lodging a complaint did not fall within the social areas outlined in the Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed as against the Ontario March of Dimes.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging his employment was terminated because of his disability.

His former employer, Royal Group Inc., brought a request to add Galanda Building Systems Inc. as a respondent, arguing that the termination resulted from Galanda's decision not to offer the applicant employment following an asset purchase.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the alleged facts could lead to a finding that Galanda breached the Code and that Galanda would not suffer prejudice.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, including a poisoned work environment, failure to accommodate, and discriminatory termination.

The respondent requested early dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that an employment standards officer had already determined the applicant was terminated for violating company policy, not due to discrimination.

The Tribunal found that the employment standards proceeding appropriately dealt with the termination issue, but did not address the poisoned work environment or failure to accommodate allegations.

The request for dismissal was granted in part, dismissing the termination claim while allowing the remaining claims to proceed to a hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging disability discrimination regarding the termination of his employment, naming a human resources manager as the sole respondent.

The corporate employer requested an order to remove the personal respondent and substitute itself as the proper respondent.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the termination decision was made by the company and the relief sought could only be provided by the corporate employer.

The Tribunal also declined to act on the applicant's unclear requests for consolidation and reactivation.

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

The respondent sought dismissal on the basis that it operates an inter-provincial and international trucking business, making it a federal undertaking under section 92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The applicant did not dispute the nature of the respondent's business.

The Tribunal found the application was outside its jurisdiction and dismissed it pursuant to Rule 13.1 of its Rules of Procedure.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment against her former employer and three individuals.

The organizational respondent was in receivership and bankruptcy.

The court-appointed Receiver and Trustee submitted that the proceedings were stayed under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and a Receivership Order.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the applicant to advise whether she intended to pursue the application and seek leave of the Superior Court of Justice to lift the stay, failing which the application may be dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application against a corporate respondent and two individual respondents.

Proceedings against the corporate respondent were stayed due to its filing of a Notice of Intention to Make a Proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

One individual respondent filed a response, while the other failed to do so.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the non-responding individual of the consequences of failing to respond and granting a 7-day extension.

The Tribunal also directed the parties to provide submissions on whether the bankruptcy stay against the corporate respondent extends to the individual respondents.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing of her human rights application.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed.

The applicant subsequently left voice messages claiming she was too ill to travel.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application immediately, instead directing the applicant to provide medical documentation explaining her absence and her failure to notify the Tribunal in a timely manner, failing which the application would be dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in the operation of a union hiring hall by the respondent, which dispatches members to work on ships in Canadian and American waters.

The respondent submitted that the application was outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction as it operates in a federally regulated industry.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that shipping extending beyond provincial limits falls within federal jurisdiction under s. 92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant, a probationary employee, alleged she was terminated because of a disability after she was involved in a serious motorcycle accident.

The respondent maintained that the decision to terminate her employment for poor performance was made prior to the accident.

The Tribunal found credible evidence, including a probationary review report and the hiring of a replacement, demonstrating that the decision to terminate the applicant was made before the accident occurred.

The Tribunal also found no evidence that the termination date was accelerated due to the accident.

The application was dismissed.

The respondent requested further particulars from the applicant and an adjournment of the hearing until the applicant complied.

The Tribunal found that the original complaint provided sufficient particulars for the respondent to understand the case it had to meet, noting that the respondent had already filed its Response, documents, and witness statements.

The Tribunal also noted the respondent's delay in raising its concerns.

The request for further particulars and an adjournment was denied.

The respondent brought a Request for Order during Proceedings seeking particulars and the production of the applicant's complete WSIB file.

The applicant failed to respond appropriately to the request.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide the requested particulars, produce the WSIB file at the respondent's expense for photocopying, and clarify the nature of certain notes included in her productions.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario issued an interim decision on consent of the parties, ordering that two applications under section 34 of the Human Rights Code be heard together.

The hearing was scheduled to commence on November 12, 2009.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application because he had filed a civil action for wrongful dismissal alleging virtually identical facts and claiming damages for a breach of the Code.

In his reconsideration request, the applicant sought to amend his application to include additional allegations of discrimination but did not address the civil action.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that an application that has been dismissed cannot be amended.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on race, age, and disability.

The respondents sought to dismiss the application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance had been dealt with in a prior labour arbitration.

The Tribunal found that the age and disability allegations were appropriately dealt with by the arbitrator and dismissed them under s. 45.1.

Although the racial discrimination allegations were not raised before the arbitrator, the Tribunal dismissed them as an abuse of process, noting the initial grievance was broad enough to encompass them and the applicant provided no cogent explanation for failing to pursue them at arbitration.

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

After a mediation meeting failed to resolve the matter, the Tribunal scheduled a hearing.

The respondents requested a rescheduling, and the Tribunal repeatedly contacted the applicant for her availability dates.

Despite multiple phone calls and a written warning that failure to respond would result in the application being deemed abandoned, the applicant did not provide the requested dates.

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