HRTO 2009

The applicant alleged that the respondent breached a settlement agreement by failing to provide a timely and accurate letter of reference.

The Tribunal found no agreement on the timing or content of the letter, but concluded that the incorrect start date in the provided letter constituted an inadvertent breach.

The respondent was ordered to amend the letter of reference to reflect the correct start date.

No monetary damages were awarded.

The Wahgoshig First Nation filed a Request to Intervene in two human rights applications concerning the termination of the applicants' services.

The respondent school board agreed to the intervention but objected to the intervenor expanding the scope of the applications to include broad systemic issues of discrimination against students.

The Tribunal granted the request to intervene but ruled that the intervenor would not be permitted to expand the subject matter of the applications beyond the personal treatment of the applicants.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The respondent failed to file a response within the required 35-day period.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondent to file a response by a final deadline, warning that failure to do so could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming the respondent to have accepted the allegations.

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

The respondent failed to file a response and subsequently advised the Tribunal that it was subject to a Recognition Order under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA), which stayed all proceedings against it.

The Tribunal found that the CCAA Order had the effect of staying the human rights proceeding.

The Tribunal directed that the matter be placed in abeyance for up to one year, with instructions for the parties to advise the Tribunal if the stay expires or if leave to continue is obtained from the Court.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment against a corporate respondent and several individual respondents.

The corporate respondent was insolvent and under a court-enforced receivership, resulting in a stay of proceedings against it.

The applicant requested to discontinue the proceedings against the corporate respondent and continue against the individual respondents.

The Tribunal directed the individual respondents to file responses to the applicant's request before making a determination.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and failure to accommodate following his termination.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal considered the admissibility of a medical report dated March 15, 2007.

The Tribunal found the report arguably relevant to the employer's investigation of the applicant's illness and the bona fides of the termination decision, admitting it subject to limitations regarding the scope of the original complaint.

The applicant filed a Request for Order during Proceedings seeking to set aside an earlier interim decision that deferred his applications pending the determination of preliminary issues in transitional applications.

The Tribunal treated the request as a request for reconsideration under section 45.7 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that its rules only permit reconsideration of final decisions, and the interim decision at issue was not final.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability regarding his termination.

He had also commenced a civil action for wrongful dismissal arising from the same facts.

The Tribunal considered whether the application was barred under s. 34(11) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that because the civil action did not specifically claim a Code infringement or seek a remedy under the Code, the application was not barred.

However, on the agreement of both parties, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the resolution of the civil action.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment based on disability, ancestry, and reprisal, approximately two years after the last alleged event.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for delay.

The applicant argued the delay was incurred in good faith due to his belief that his union was pursuing a grievance and due to his disability.

The respondent argued the delay was not in good faith and that the application should be deferred as the grievance was still outstanding.

The Tribunal ordered a half-day oral hearing to determine the issues of timeliness and deferral.

The applicant filed a human rights application but subsequently failed to update his contact information or communicate with the Tribunal.

Notices and correspondence sent to the applicant's phone, email, and mailing address were returned as undeliverable.

As the applicant failed to respond to Tribunal directions or provide updated contact information as required by the Rules of Procedure, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application challenging a provision of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) that makes accessibility advisory committees mandatory only for municipalities with a population of 10,000 or more.

The Legislative Assembly of Ontario requested to be removed as a respondent, arguing parliamentary privilege.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding it lacked jurisdiction to supervise the legislative process.

The Tribunal also ordered the applicant to provide submissions explaining how his personal rights under the Human Rights Code were infringed by the remaining respondents, as the Code does not grant jurisdiction to rule on the bare question of whether legislation breaches the Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging racial discrimination by the respondent police services board and officers.

The applicant had also commenced a civil action against the respondents alleging malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, and breach of Charter and human rights arising from the same factual context.

The Tribunal held that section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code bars an application where a civil proceeding seeking remedies for the same alleged Code infringement is ongoing.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The personal respondent, who resides in Saskatchewan and no longer works for the corporate respondent, requested to give his evidence at the upcoming Case Resolution Conference by teleconference.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding it fair, just, and expeditious, as his evidence was not anticipated to be pivotal to the issues in the Application.

The applicant filed human rights applications alleging he was subjected to homophobic slurs while attending minor hockey games.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the applications against the individual respondents (a player and a spectator) on the basis that they did not provide a service to the applicant.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the spectator, finding it plain and obvious that a spectator does not provide a service under the Code.

The issue regarding the player was deferred pending the resolution of broader preliminary issues raised by the institutional respondents.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding requested an order requiring three non-parties to provide statements prior to the hearing to assist in preparing witness statements.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant had not established the relevance of the evidence and that the requested procedure would not be fair or just.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to file a 'will say' statement indicating expected evidence and to summons the witnesses to attend the hearing.

The complainant requested the production of an email between the respondent's in-house legal counsel's assistant and the respondent's counsel.

The Tribunal had previously ruled the document was protected by solicitor-client privilege.

The request was made after both parties had closed their cases and without providing reasons for reconsideration or reopening the case.

The Tribunal denied the request for production.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of the Tribunal's decision on remedy, which awarded him $5,000 for injury to dignity but denied damages for lost wages because he had mitigated his wage loss.

The applicant argued the Tribunal failed to appreciate the full impact of his carpal tunnel syndrome on his future employability.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant was attempting to re-argue his case and appeal the decision, which does not meet the limited criteria for reconsideration under the Tribunal's rules.

The applicant filed an application alleging the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board discriminated against him on the ground of disability by delaying and mishandling his claim for benefits.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed for failing to disclose discrimination under the Code, or alternatively, because the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to review WSIB benefit decisions.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision scheduling a conference call to hear oral submissions on whether the alleged facts amount to discrimination and whether the WSIB's actions constitute a 'service' under the Code.

The applicant filed human rights complaints alleging discrimination in accommodation regarding condominium parking.

The respondents raised preliminary objections, arguing the applications were barred because the applicant had previously commenced and then consented to dismiss a Small Claims Court action regarding the same issues.

The Tribunal dismissed the preliminary objections, finding that the Small Claims Court did not deal with the substance of the applications, the matter was not settled, and there was no abuse of process.

The Tribunal directed the parties to provide further submissions on the respondents' request to remove the personal respondents.

The applicant requested to re-activate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the outcome of proceedings before the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB).

The respondents opposed the request, arguing that one of the applicant's complaints before the HPARB had not yet been finally determined.

The Tribunal found that the HPARB proceedings were effectively concluded and there was no ongoing process that risked duplicating the hearing of evidence.

The Tribunal lifted the deferral and directed the application to proceed.