HRTO 2009

In an interim decision regarding a human rights application alleging failure to accommodate a student's exceptionalities, the respondents sought an order to disclose parts of the applicant's Ontario Student Record (OSR).

The applicant's litigation guardian had withheld consent for the respondents to rely on the OSR.

The Tribunal reviewed the OSR and found that specific Individual Education Plans (IEPs) and Identification, Placement, and Review Committee (IPRC) documents were crucial to resolving the application.

The Tribunal ordered the litigation guardian to provide written consent for the disclosure of these documents, finding it would be an abuse of process to withhold them.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the ground of disability, claiming constructive dismissal after a workplace injury.

The respondent argued the applicant abandoned his employment.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the parties to make submissions on whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction, given the lack of alleged link between the disability and termination, and whether the application was filed within the one-year time limit under section 34 of the Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by a prosecutor and police officer during a traffic violation trial.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application was filed more than one year after the last incident.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to demonstrate the delay was incurred in good faith.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that a prosecutor and police officer acting for an opposing party in litigation are not providing a service under the Code.

The application was dismissed.

The respondents requested that the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario defer consideration of the applicant's human rights application pending the conclusion of a grievance and arbitration procedure based on the same facts and issues.

The applicant did not make submissions in response.

The Tribunal granted the request and deferred the application, noting its general practice to defer when there is an ongoing grievance under a collective agreement based on the same facts and issues to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions.

The applicant filed a transitional application under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal previously directed the respondent to file a Response, which it failed to do.

The Tribunal was advised that one of the corporate respondents was in bankruptcy, triggering a stay of proceedings against it.

The Tribunal amended the style of cause to reflect the proper corporate respondents and directed the remaining corporate respondents to file a Response within 15 days, warning that failure to do so could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice.

The respondent requested an adjournment of a preliminary hearing scheduled for November 12, 2009, citing a recent change in in-house counsel and the need to retain outside counsel.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, noting that a change of counsel is not generally considered an extraordinary circumstance justifying an adjournment, and the respondent had sufficient time to retain counsel before the hearing.

The applicant filed an application under section 53(5) of the Human Rights Code, referencing a Commission file number.

The Tribunal found that no formal complaint had been filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission prior to June 30, 2008, only an inquiry.

As a result, the transition application was dismissed, without prejudice to the applicant's ability to file a fresh application under section 34(1) of the Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application against her employer.

Her bargaining agent, the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 5001, filed a Request to Intervene.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene, noting that a union nearly always has an interest in a human rights application brought by a bargaining unit member alleging discrimination in employment.

The applicant filed an application under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code based on a complaint previously filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

The respondents submitted that the Tribunal could not deal with the application because the Commission had already dismissed the complaint and the subsequent request for reconsideration.

The Tribunal held that it may only accept a complaint that is continued at the time of the section 53 application.

Since the Commission had finally disposed of the complaint prior to the application, there was no continued complaint.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

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

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent of the consequences of failing to participate under Rule 5.5 and granted the respondent a final extension to October 23, 2009, to file a Response and explain the delay.

The applicant brought a Request for Order during Proceedings to add the Human Resources Manager as a personal respondent and to remove another personal respondent on consent.

The Tribunal denied the request to add the Human Resources Manager because the institutional respondent accepted vicarious liability for her actions and the allegations were not likely to result in a personal order against her.

The applicant alleged sexual harassment and reprisal by her union and its president.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed or deferred because of ongoing grievance arbitrations, an internal union investigation, an employer investigation, and upcoming union elections.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss, finding that the grievance proceedings did not address the substance of the human rights application.

The Tribunal also denied the request to defer, concluding that the proceedings involved different parties and remedies, and that the upcoming union elections did not justify a deferral.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability regarding the termination of his employment.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance of the application was already dealt with in a union grievance arbitration.

The Tribunal found that the arbitrator had considered the reasons for the applicant's absence and conducted the type of analysis contemplated by the Code.

The application was dismissed as an attempt to re-litigate a case already determined.

The respondents filed a Request for Orders During Proceeding seeking deferral, mediation, and particulars in a human rights application.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the applicant declined mediation, there was no outstanding proceeding to justify deferral, and the request for particulars was moot as the applicant had recently filed detailed statements of facts and documents.

The applicant filed an application under section 53(5) of the Human Rights Code.

In a second Request for Order during Proceedings, a request was made to add two individuals as respondents.

The Tribunal denied the request for the reasons set out in a previous interim decision, while confirming that the original complaint included an allegation of reprisal.

The applicant filed a late request for reconsideration of a Tribunal decision dismissing his human rights application.

He argued that there were new facts, that his counsel did not properly present his case, and that the decision did not address all issues or acknowledge his positive community contributions.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the information presented was mostly before the Tribunal at the original hearing, the complaints about counsel were an attempt to repair perceived deficiencies, and the applicant failed to establish compelling or extraordinary circumstances to justify reconsideration.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination after he was not selected for an interview for a permanent position with the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services.

The respondents, the Ministry and the individual manager who screened the applications, requested an order to remove the individual manager as a party.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding no issue with the Ministry's vicarious liability or ability to remedy the alleged violation, and no compelling reason for the individual respondent to remain a party.

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

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

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent of the consequences of failing to participate under Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, and provided a final deadline of October 23, 2009, to file a response along with an explanation for the delay.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled Case Resolution Conference, citing financial inability to travel from Newfoundland, medical appointments, and lack of time to prepare due to other matters.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the applicant had known of the hearing date since June 2009 and that the reasons provided did not constitute exceptional circumstances as required by the Tribunal's scheduling guidelines.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates because a key witness was unavailable due to their spouse's illness and upcoming surgery.

The applicant opposed the request, citing the Tribunal's policy discouraging adjournments.

The Tribunal found that the circumstances constituted exceptional circumstances justifying an adjournment.

The hearing dates were cancelled and ordered to be rescheduled, with filing deadlines extended accordingly.