HRTO 2009

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation after OHIP denied coverage for in vitro fertilization required due to her male spouse's infertility.

The respondent failed to file a Response, instead sending a letter disputing the grounds and requesting clarification.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondent to file a complete Response in accordance with the Rules of Procedure, noting that the limited exceptions to filing a Response did not apply.

The applicant was also given an opportunity to amend her Application to clarify the grounds.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to amend his human rights application to elaborate on public interest remedies and add the ground of reprisal.

The respondent did not object but requested an opportunity to file an amended Response and sought particulars of the reprisal allegations.

The Tribunal granted the request, permitting the applicant to amend his Application if the matter is not resolved at an upcoming mediation, and allowing the respondent to file an amended Response thereafter.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondents.

The respondents failed to file a Response within the required 35-day period.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondents to file a Response within 5 days of receipt, along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice and deem the respondents to have accepted the allegations.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his application on the basis that the matters complained of fell within the adjudicative function of the respondents.

The applicant argued that the decision was inconsistent with established jurisprudence on the interpretation of 'services' under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant's disagreement with the adjudicator's legal analysis did not constitute a valid basis for reconsideration under Rule 25.5.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondents.

The respondents failed to file a Response within the required 35-day period.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondents that failure to participate could lead to orders against them without their participation, pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondents were given a final deadline to file a Response and explain the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by her union for failing to file a grievance on her behalf in 2005.

The Tribunal initially dismissed the application for being filed outside the one-year time limit.

Upon discovering that the applicant's submissions on the delay issue had not been considered, the Tribunal reconsidered the matter on its own motion.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's explanations, including a learning disability and lack of funds, did not justify the nearly four-year delay, particularly the 17-month delay after her related labour board complaint was dismissed.

The application remained dismissed.

The applicant failed to comply with the Tribunal's rules regarding the filing of materials and failed to confirm her attendance at a scheduled Case Resolution Conference.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's conduct indicated an intention to abandon the application.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application, and the respondent subsequently commenced a Small Claims Court action against the applicant for defamation and lost business.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal application be dismissed or deferred pending the civil action.

The applicant filed a Request to Expedite Proceedings, expressing concern about the civil action and alleging reprisal.

The Tribunal denied the respondent's request to dismiss or defer, noting that section 34(11) of the Code does not apply because the civil action was initiated by the respondent, not the applicant.

The Tribunal also denied the applicant's Request to Expedite, finding that the circumstances did not meet the high threshold for urgency.

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 could not deal with the Application because the underlying complaint had been withdrawn.

The Tribunal found that the Commission had closed the complaint file as withdrawn in 2005, meaning there was no continued complaint that could be abandoned to file the present Application.

The Application was dismissed.

The applicant alleged that the respondent Hospital discriminated against him by participating in a task force that distributed a questionnaire to prospective patients of newly recruited family physicians.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the Hospital could not be held vicariously liable for the actions of the independent task force or the physicians, who operated their practices independently.

Furthermore, merely asking questions related to Code grounds on a questionnaire is not a violation in itself.

The application was dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.

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

The respondents brought a request for an order dismissing the application on the basis that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction, as the events occurred outside Ontario.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's employment took place exclusively in the eastern provinces, and the only connection to Ontario was that the alleged harassment occurred at a conference in Ontario and the organizational respondent had an Ontario address.

Applying the 'sufficient connection' test, the Tribunal concluded it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the application.

The applicant, a Black temporary general labourer, alleged racial discrimination in employment by the respondent temporary employment agency and its employees.

He claimed he was unfairly disciplined following an altercation with a client's security guard, given less desirable shifts, and denied the opportunity to take a test for a higher-paying position.

The Tribunal found no evidence of racial discrimination.

The discipline was based on the applicant's inappropriate conduct, scheduling decisions were based on availability and client needs, and the applicant did not qualify for the higher-paying position because he failed to achieve the required score on an initial aptitude test.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested reconsideration of an interim decision that defined the scope of the complaint and removed certain individual respondents.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the interim decision was not a final decision and that the applicant's disagreement with the Tribunal's conclusions was not a proper basis for reconsideration.

The applicant, who has congenital physical disabilities, alleged that his employment was terminated because of his disability or perceived disability, and that the respondents engaged in reprisal by disclosing mediation details.

The Tribunal found that the individual respondent terminated the applicant due to concerns about his ability to safely perform the work and potential WSIB claims, making disability a factor in the dismissal.

The reprisal allegation was dismissed as the disclosure of mediation information does not constitute a reprisal under the Code.

The Tribunal awarded the applicant $10,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, $4,000 for lost wages, and $85 for out-of-pocket expenses.

The applicant filed a Request for Order seeking an emergency hearing to compel the respondent physician to provide three months' medication, following the termination of the physician-patient relationship.

The Tribunal dismissed the request without requiring a response, noting that even if an expedited hearing were held, the Tribunal's remedial powers do not extend to ordering that medications be prescribed.

The respondents requested an adjournment of a scheduled Case Resolution Conference on the basis that the corporate respondent's general manager would be out of the province.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the respondents had specifically agreed to the hearing date and ought to have known the general manager would be required to attend.

The Tribunal concluded that the reasons provided did not constitute exceptional circumstances warranting an adjournment.

The applicant, who had moved to Nova Scotia, requested to participate in her upcoming human rights hearing by teleconference due to travel expenses and work commitments.

The respondents opposed the request, arguing that in-person cross-examination was necessary because credibility was a central issue.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the ordinary expectation is for parties to testify in person when serious credibility issues are involved, and the applicant's reasons of expense and inconvenience did not justify an exception.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to add William Blair, Alok Mukherjee, and the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants as respondents to her human rights application alleging discriminatory police response.

The Tribunal denied the request to add Mukherjee and the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants as there were no allegations against them in the original complaint.

The Tribunal granted the request to add William Blair, Chief of Police, as he is jointly responsible with the Toronto Police Services Board for the discriminatory actions of police officers.

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

The applicant had also commenced a civil action for wrongful dismissal seeking damages for breach of the right to a workplace free of discrimination.

The Tribunal found that the factual situation in the application was the same as in the civil action, and the applicant was effectively seeking damages for a breach of the Code in court.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as barred by section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, which prevents duplicative proceedings.

The applicant, a minor, brought human rights complaints through his mother as litigation guardian.

The Children's Aid Society obtained interim custody of the applicant and sought permanent Crown wardship.

The respondents and the Society argued the mother should not continue as litigation guardian and sought to suspend the human rights proceedings until the custody issue was resolved.

The Tribunal found that the ongoing child protection litigation and uncertainty over permanent custody were significant factors in determining the appropriate litigation guardian.

The Tribunal ordered a stay of the human rights proceedings for up to one year pending the completion of the child protection proceedings.