HRTO 2009

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to add two individuals as respondents to her human rights application.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the allegations against the proposed respondents related to the termination of her employment, which post-dated the original complaint and did not form part of the subject matter of the current application.

The applicant was directed to file a separate request if she wished to amend her application to add an allegation of reprisal.

The applicant filed a human rights application against her union more than one year after the last alleged incident of discrimination.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss due to the delay.

The applicant argued the delay was due to lack of legal representation and fear of fees.

The Tribunal found that these reasons did not establish good faith under section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code, noting the applicant had been able to commence other legal proceedings against the employer and the union during the delay period.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code against the respondent employer.

The applicant's union filed a Request to Intervene.

As the union is the bargaining agent for the applicant and has an interest in applications alleging discrimination in employment, the Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging racial discrimination after being denied a start-up housing benefit by the Ontario Disability Support Program.

The respondents filed a response detailing the interaction and requested the removal of the individual respondent.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the applicant to provide submissions on whether the allegations, if assumed true, provide a basis for a Code violation, and whether the individual respondent should be removed.

The Union respondents requested an adjournment of a scheduled Case Resolution Conference because two of their witnesses were unavailable due to a previously scheduled union conference.

The applicant opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding that the respondents had known about the hearing dates for months and that a scheduling conflict with a work conference did not constitute exceptional circumstances under the Tribunal's scheduling guidelines.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability by his union and the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The respondents sought early dismissal on several grounds, including jurisdiction and delay.

Due to the applicant's disability-related inability to participate in oral hearings, the Tribunal ordered that the preliminary jurisdictional issues—specifically whether the application against the union is barred by section 53(8) of the Code and whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction over adjudicative decisions of the OLRB—be determined by way of written submissions.

The applicant contacted the Tribunal indicating a desire to withdraw his application but failed to file the required Form 9 Request to Withdraw.

After the applicant failed to respond to a Registrar's letter warning that the application would be deemed abandoned, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging a racially motivated refusal to provide services.

The respondents requested dismissal, arguing the application lacked particulars and was frivolous and vexatious.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the applicant to provide submissions on whether the allegations, if assumed to be true, provide a basis for a finding of discrimination under the Code, and to provide specific details regarding the Ministry's alleged actions.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondents.

The applicant's union, United Steelworkers, Local 3789, filed a Request to Intervene.

The applicant did not object and the respondents did not file a response.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination after a Crown attorney failed to charge another individual with perjury.

The application was filed more than one year after the last alleged incident.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss due to the delay.

The applicant failed to provide submissions or establish that the delay was incurred in good faith, stating only that he was 'mixed up with dates'.

The Tribunal found the applicant did not act with due diligence and dismissed the application.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of sex, family status, and marital status when she was not rehired after her pregnancy leave, during which the vendor sold the business to the purchaser.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal granted the applicant's request to amend the Application and to add the purchaser as a respondent.

The Tribunal denied the request to add the vendor's principal as a personal respondent, finding no compelling reason to do so.

The Tribunal also ordered the production of certain documents, including a limited portion of the applicant's medical records, and removed the purchaser's principal as a personal respondent.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment.

At the hearing, the applicant refused to testify from the witness stand, engaged in mutual name-calling with the personal respondent, and stormed out of the hearing room.

The Tribunal dismissed the application because the applicant failed to introduce any evidence to establish a case of discrimination.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking leave to amend the Application.

The respondents consented to the amendments, which clarified the applicant's position without adding new issues.

The Tribunal granted leave to amend the Application and set deadlines for amended Responses and Reply.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging workplace discrimination by his former employer, the LCBO.

The LCBO sought early dismissal on the grounds that the applicant had signed a Full and Final Release upon accepting a separation package in 2006, and that the application was filed beyond the one-year limitation period.

The Tribunal found that the applicant voluntarily accepted the settlement and Release, and that economic pressure or time constraints did not amount to duress.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the nearly three-year delay in filing the application.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process and for being out of time.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code against the Toronto Police Service and two individuals.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision correcting the institutional respondent's name to the Toronto Police Services Board.

As the personal respondents had not yet filed responses, the Tribunal extended their deadline to do so, warning that failure to participate could result in the matter proceeding without them.

The applicant alleged that his employment was terminated because of his age, after the employer inquired about employees' ages to determine health benefit premiums.

The respondents failed to file Responses and did not participate in the proceeding.

The Tribunal found that the termination was due in part to the applicant's age, violating section 5(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The corporate respondent was ordered to pay $6,112 for lost wages and $5,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in employment, relating to events that occurred in 1997.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application was outside the one-year limitation period and appeared to be based on the same facts as a previous application that was dismissed for delay.

The Tribunal found that the substance of the current application, including the issue of the applicant's delay, had already been dealt with in the previous proceeding.

The application was dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

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

Prior to filing the application, she commenced a wrongful dismissal action in the Superior Court of Justice seeking damages and reinstatement under the Human Rights Code based on the same facts.

The respondents requested early dismissal of the application.

The Tribunal found that section 34(11) of the Code precludes an application where a civil proceeding seeking remedies for the same alleged infringement has been commenced and not finally determined.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

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

The respondents requested an early dismissal, arguing the matter was already dealt with in previous complaints and settlement agreements, and that a full and final release was signed.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision scheduling a preliminary hearing to hear oral submissions on whether the application should be dismissed under sections 45.1 and 53(8) of the Human Rights Code.

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

The respondent failed to file a Response within the 35-day deadline and did not communicate with the Tribunal.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent of the consequences of failing to respond under Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondent was granted 10 days to file a Response along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice.