HRTO 2009

Following a hearing, the applicant submitted unsworn documents from an employment agency pursuant to a Case Assessment Direction.

The respondents objected to the unsworn nature of the documents and sought to make submissions.

The Tribunal ordered the hearing to be reconvened to allow the applicant to call the author of the documents as a witness and permit cross-examination by the respondents.

The individual respondents in a human rights application requested to be removed as parties.

The applicant made no submissions in response.

The Tribunal applied the principles from previous decisions, noting that personal respondents should generally not be named where a corporate respondent is deemed liable and there is no compelling juridical reason to include them.

Finding no issue regarding the corporate respondent's potential liability and no prejudice to the applicant, the Tribunal granted the request and removed the individual respondents from the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and disability regarding his eviction from a rental unit.

The respondents requested dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter was already decided by the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The Tribunal found that the Board had appropriately dealt with the substance of the application, having heard the same discrimination arguments and found no discrimination.

The application was dismissed.

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

A Notice of Hearing was sent to the applicant, but the applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing.

The respondents were present.

In the absence of the applicant and any explanation for the non-attendance, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The respondent landlord brought a request to dismiss the human rights application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application had been appropriately dealt with in a prior proceeding before the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB).

The Tribunal found that the LTB had made factual findings regarding the landlord's failure to meet maintenance standards, delayed repairs, and rent issues, but had not considered the applicant's allegations of racial discrimination and reprisal.

The Tribunal granted the request in part, ruling that the LTB's factual findings could not be relitigated, but allowing the discrimination issues to proceed.

The Tribunal also granted the request to remove a paralegal as a personal respondent, finding no compelling reason to continue the proceeding against her.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code but failed to identify any ground of discrimination.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, affording the applicant 30 days to make submissions on jurisdiction.

The applicant did not respond.

The Tribunal dismissed the application pursuant to Rule 13.1, finding it lacked jurisdiction as no Code violations were alleged against the respondent union.

The applicant filed two human rights applications alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of place of origin and disability, as well as reprisal.

The respondents requested that the applications be dismissed on preliminary grounds, including that the applicant had signed a full and final release in a previous arbitration, that another proceeding had dealt with the substance, and due to delay.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing that a one-day hearing be scheduled to address these preliminary issues and setting out a timeline for the parties to file submissions and documents.

The applicant filed human rights applications against Kelly Services, IBM Canada Limited, and a personal respondent, alleging his employment assignment was terminated due to disability.

The Tribunal considered a Request for Order During Proceedings to remove the personal respondent.

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal found that the personal respondent was an employee of Kelly Services acting in the course of his employment, and Kelly Services was vicariously liable for his actions.

The Tribunal ordered the removal of the personal respondent from both applications.

The applicants filed transitional applications under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code against two individual respondents.

The respondents argued that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the underlying complaints against them had been removed by the Ontario Human Rights Commission prior to the transfer.

The Tribunal found that the complaints against the two individuals were not continued within the meaning of the Code, as they had been removed as respondents.

The applications were dismissed.

The complainant in a human rights proceeding filed requests for an order seeking production of additional documents and information.

The Chief of Police and the Toronto Police Services Board responded, providing some documents and stating others were not in their possession.

The Tribunal declined to order further production at this time and denied the complainant's request for a conference call hearing to make oral submissions, directing that any outstanding issues be addressed at the hearing of the matter.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application for being filed more than one year after the last alleged incident of discrimination.

The applicant argued she was unaware she could file a human rights complaint against her union and provided new documents regarding her efforts to return to work and her duty of fair representation complaint to the OLRB.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding the new documents could have been obtained earlier and did not alter the conclusion that the delay in filing was not incurred in good faith.

The applicant, born in Hong Kong on January 1, 2006 (local time), sought admission to junior kindergarten.

At the exact moment of his birth, it was December 31, 2005, in Ontario.

The school board denied admission because eligibility required a 2005 birth year as reflected on the birth certificate.

The applicant alleged discrimination based on place of origin.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that relying on the local date of birth on a birth certificate does not engage the purposes of the prohibition against discrimination based on place of origin, as time zones do not relate to stereotyping or historical disadvantage.

The applicant filed a human rights application after being terminated from her employment.

The respondent brought a preliminary request to dismiss the application as an abuse of process, relying on a Full and Final Release signed by the applicant in exchange for a severance package.

The applicant argued she signed the release under economic duress and based on incorrect legal advice.

The Tribunal found that the applicant understood the consequences of the release, had independent legal advice, and received sufficient consideration.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The applicants filed transitional human rights applications alleging sex discrimination, family status discrimination, and reprisal regarding a youth hockey dressing room policy that denied female players access to the boys' change room.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed several preliminary requests for orders.

The Tribunal bifurcated the hearing into liability and remedy phases, declined to dismiss the applications for delay or lack of jurisdiction, refused to strike the requests for remedial relief, and denied the respondents' request to add Hockey Canada as a party to avoid delaying the hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race, ancestry, place of origin, and ethnic origin in the context of Family Court custody proceedings.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer.

The respondent requested deferral pending the completion of the Family Court matter.

The Tribunal found it appropriate to defer the application under section 45 of the Human Rights Code and Rule 14.1 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, as it would be premature to consider the matter until the Family Court rendered a final decision.

The applicant filed a transitional application with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario on June 20, 2009.

One of the respondents requested the application be dismissed, alleging they did not receive the application materials by the June 30, 2009 statutory deadline.

The Tribunal held that an application is 'made' when sufficient material is filed with the Tribunal, and exercised its discretion to waive the technical requirement of delivering the application to the respondent prior to filing.

The respondent was directed to file a response.

The applicant filed human rights applications against her employer and her union alleging discrimination on the basis of disability.

The respondents sought early dismissal.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had signed a valid settlement agreement releasing the employer from all human rights claims up to the date of the agreement, and rejected her claim that she signed under duress or misunderstanding.

The Tribunal also dismissed the application against the union, finding that the allegations related to the duty of fair representation, which falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint against his union and several individuals.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed a request to clarify the scope of the application and remove three personal respondents.

The Tribunal held that allegations predating the original complaint could not be added under the transitional provisions of the Human Rights Code.

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal removed one personal respondent whose actions were purely administrative, but declined to remove two others who were alleged to have engaged in direct discriminatory conduct and reprisal.

The applicant filed a human rights application against a university and several personal respondents.

In their response, the respondents requested that the faculty association be added as a respondent.

The Tribunal granted the request and added the faculty association as a respondent.

The Tribunal also directed that this application proceed to mediation together with a similar application filed by another individual against the same respondents.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the College of Veterinarians of Ontario and the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board after being refused a veterinary license.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction over the HPARB because the Code does not cover the content or results of decisions by other statutory bodies.

The Tribunal also found it lacked jurisdiction over the College because the applicant had previously filed a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission regarding the same subject matter, which is barred under section 53(8) of the Code.

The application was dismissed.