HRTO 2009

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging he was denied taxi service because he did not provide a blanket for his service dog.

He subsequently brought a Request for Order to add the taxi driver and his supervisor as individual respondents after obtaining their names through a previous Tribunal order.

The Tribunal applied the three-part test for adding respondents and found that the allegations could support a Code violation against the individuals.

The Tribunal concluded there was a compelling reason to add them because the corporate respondent, a taxi broker, disputed liability for the driver's actions.

The request to add the two individuals as respondents was granted.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination and reprisal in the provision of goods, services, and facilities.

The respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceeding to dismiss the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal attempted to schedule a teleconference hearing to address the jurisdictional issue, but the applicant failed to respond to multiple telephone messages and written correspondence.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment regarding workplace accommodation.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application because the applicant's union had filed a grievance on the same facts and issues, and the parties were in the process of scheduling an arbitration hearing.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that deferral was the most fair, just, and expeditious approach to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions.

The applicant filed a human rights application against his supervisor and later amended it to include his employer, the corporate respondent.

The individual respondent filed a timely response, but the corporate respondent did not.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the corporate respondent of the consequences of failing to respond under Rule 5.5 and granted an extension to October 9, 2009, to file a response with an explanation for the delay.

The applicant alleged that his employment as a shuttle bus driver was terminated and he was subjected to differential treatment on the basis of his race, place of origin, ethnic origin, and ancestry.

The respondents maintained that the applicant's position was made redundant because the hotel outsourced its shuttle bus service for cost and efficiency reasons.

The Tribunal found no evidence to support the allegations of discrimination, concluding that the termination was based solely on legitimate business considerations.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application relating to the special diet allowance under the Ontario Disability Support Program.

The Tribunal noted that over one hundred similar complaints had been referred to it and were proceeding under a lead case approach.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision suspending further steps in this application until a final decision is issued in the lead cases, consistent with its procedure for similar applications.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and requested that it be expedited to be heard with her previously scheduled application regarding age discrimination.

The Tribunal denied the request to expedite, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate the high threshold of urgency required by the Tribunal's jurisprudence, and that expediting the matter on less than a week's notice would be unfair to the respondents.

The Tribunal requested submissions on whether the upcoming hearing should be cancelled and the two applications joined.

Les requérants ont demandé au Tribunal d'ordonner une enquête en vertu de l'article 44 du Code des droits de la personne pour déterminer si les intimés avaient communiqué à des tiers des renseignements sur leur appartenance à la religion raelienne.

Le Tribunal a rejeté la demande d'enquête, concluant qu'elle n'était pas nécessaire pour obtenir les éléments de preuve.

Le Tribunal a plutôt ordonné aux intimés de produire les documents et renseignements pertinents concernant ces communications.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation and reprisals during her time as a volunteer with the respondent.

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

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

The applicant provided submissions but failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay of nearly two and a half years.

The Tribunal found that the delay was not incurred in good faith and dismissed the application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

In an interim decision regarding a human rights application alleging sex discrimination, the Tribunal revoked a previous order granting intervener status to the Faculty Association after clarifying that the individual who filed the request did not represent the Association.

The Tribunal also established a timetable for written submissions regarding the applicant's request for production of a colleague's promotion file and salary information, directing that notice be given to the affected third party.

The parties jointly requested an adjournment of a scheduled one-day hearing to reschedule it for five days over two weeks, citing the estimated length of the hearing and the location of witnesses.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that its Information Bulletin requires exceptional circumstances for adjournments, which were not present.

The Tribunal directed the parties to attend the scheduled hearing date with sufficient witnesses for one full day, after which additional days would be scheduled if necessary.

The applicant in a human rights complaint alleging discrimination based on ethnic and place of origin regarding the assessment of her educational credentials filed requests for a Tribunal Ordered Inquiry, production of documents, and a written statement from the respondent's former Executive Director.

The Tribunal denied the requests for production and inquiry, finding the requested files of other applicants and statistics were not arguably relevant to whether the applicant herself was discriminated against.

The request for a written statement was also denied, as the individual could be summonsed as a witness at the hearing.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled Case Resolution Conference on the basis that her application for a Legal Aid certificate was pending and she needed more time to prepare as an unrepresented party.

The respondents objected.

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 justifying an adjournment.

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

The respondents subsequently filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal scheduled a hearing to hear oral submissions on the respondents' request.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing and provided no explanation for his absence.

Satisfied that the applicant had received proper notice, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The respondents brought a Request for Order During Proceeding to dismiss the human rights application for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that the applicant's detention and search fell under federal criminal law.

The applicant argued the police actions constituted services under provincial legislation.

The Tribunal deferred the jurisdictional decision and directed that notice be provided to the Ontario Human Rights Commission to allow it the opportunity to intervene on the broader public policy issue.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of family status and disability, claiming his employment was terminated on the same day he requested parental leave.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred because the applicant had also filed a claim under the Employment Standards Act regarding the termination.

The Tribunal found that deferral was appropriate to avoid concurrent proceedings dealing with the same factual issues surrounding the termination, and deferred the application pending the outcome of the ESA claim.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal in employment following his termination.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred because the applicant had also filed a concurrent claim under the Employment Standards Act regarding the same termination.

The Tribunal found that deferral was appropriate to avoid concurrent proceedings dealing with the same facts.

The application was deferred pending the outcome of the Employment Standards Act claim.

The respondents asserted that the parties signed Minutes of Settlement and a release, which were filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission but not approved.

The Commission held the only signed copy and required a Tribunal direction to release them.

The Tribunal ordered the Commission to provide a copy of the signed Minutes of Settlement and Release to the Tribunal and the parties.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal in goods, services, and facilities, related to alleged physical harm while in jail.

The respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking dismissal for lack of jurisdiction and failure to make out a prima facie case.

The Tribunal found the application lacked sufficient factual details and directed the applicant to provide written submissions setting out specific allegations and explaining how they fall within the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application against her former employer and a personal respondent.

The corporate respondent was subject to a stay of proceedings under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA).

The Tribunal requested submissions on whether the stay also applied to the personal respondent.

Finding that the allegations against the personal respondent related to her role in conveying human resources decisions made by the corporate respondent, the Tribunal concluded that proceeding against her would affect the corporate respondent's business.

The application against both respondents was stayed pending leave of the Superior Court or consent of the respondents.