HRTO 2009

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 respond under Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, and granted the respondent a final 10 days to file a response along with an explanation for the delay.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the respondent library on multiple grounds.

A preliminary hearing was scheduled to address issues of delay and whether the application disclosed a prima facie case.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing without providing a timely explanation.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide a valid reason for the delay in raising historical allegations and failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination regarding the recent incident, as no connection was shown between the protected grounds and the services provided.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment and housing.

The University of Toronto requested to be removed as a respondent, which was unopposed and granted.

The applicant requested to withdraw the application against the personal respondents, which was also unopposed and granted.

The applicant further requested deferral of the application pending a grievance process under his collective agreement.

The Tribunal directed York University to clarify its position on the deferral request.

The applicant filed two applications alleging discrimination in employment regarding her efforts to secure positions as a firefighter and a fire prevention inspector.

She brought a Request for an Order during Proceedings seeking to consolidate the applications and for the production of documents.

The Tribunal granted the consolidation on consent.

The request for document production was dismissed as premature, as the Tribunal's standard disclosure process had not yet occurred.

The applicant failed to provide written submissions as directed by an earlier Interim Decision and subsequent communications from the Tribunal.

Having received no further communication or submissions from the applicant, the Tribunal concluded that she had no intent of proceeding.

The application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination based on disability.

The applicant requested to amend the application to include further particulars and reprisal, which the respondent consented to.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred pending a grievance arbitration.

The Tribunal allowed the amendment and directed the Union to provide submissions on whether the application should be deferred.

The respondents requested the dismissal of the human rights application due to the applicant's consistent failure to comply with the Tribunal's Rules and directions.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled teleconference hearing despite receiving notice.

Given the applicant's continued non-compliance and failure to attend, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

In an interim decision, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario considered whether section 53(8) of the amended Human Rights Code precluded the Tribunal from hearing original allegations against the respondents or adding potential responding parties to a complaint referred by the Commission.

The Tribunal held that section 53(8) does not apply to the referral of the subject-matter of a complaint pursuant to old section 36, nor does it apply to an amendment to such a referral, provided the amendment relates to the same subject-matter.

The Tribunal directed further submissions on whether the proposed amendments fell within the referred subject-matter and other preliminary issues.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination on the basis of ethnic origin, place of origin, race, colour, and reprisal.

CUPE, Local 1328, the applicant's bargaining agent, filed a Request to Intervene, noting it had previously filed and withdrawn a grievance on the same issues.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene, finding the application raised issues that may affect the union, with the extent of participation to be determined by the presiding adjudicator at future proceedings.

The applicant, a union chief steward, filed a human rights application alleging sex discrimination and reprisal by the respondents following a sexual harassment complaint against another union representative.

She sought an interim remedy under Rule 23 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure to reinstate her use of a private office at the employer's premises, arguing it was necessary for her safety and to avoid contact with the alleged harasser.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant failed to establish that the balance of harm or convenience favoured granting the interim remedy, as her safety concerns were unsubstantiated and she had alternative locations to perform her union duties.

The applicant filed a human rights application and both parties consented to mediation.

After the respondent requested to reschedule the mediation, the Tribunal attempted to contact the applicant multiple times by telephone and letter.

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's communications or clarify her intentions.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging failure to accommodate his disability and termination of employment.

He had previously filed a civil action for wrongful dismissal based on virtually identical facts, alleging breaches of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that section 34(11) of the Code bars an application where a civil proceeding seeking remedies for the same alleged Code infringement has been commenced.

The application was dismissed as barred by section 34(11).

The complainant requested an extension of time to schedule a teleconference in order to retain legal counsel, supported by a medical note from a psychologist.

The Commission consented to a three-month adjournment, while the respondents agreed to one month.

The Tribunal granted a three-month adjournment, directing the complainant to retain counsel and scheduling the teleconference for the second week of December, with no further adjournments to be granted.

The applicant, who alleged discrimination on the basis of country of origin after being denied admission to the respondent's law school, filed requests for the production of various admissions records and a witness statement.

The Tribunal partially granted the document production requests, ordering the respondent to produce a list of LSAT scores and GPAs for successful candidates and redacted minutes of the Admissions Committee's review of mature student applications.

The request for a witness statement from the Dean was denied as premature.

The applicant requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of their human rights application pending the outcome of a union grievance procedure.

The respondent agreed to the deferral, noting the grievance dealt with the same issues.

The Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application pending the conclusion of the grievance procedure.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of ethnic origin and place of origin.

The applicant sought to amend the complaint to add new allegations, increase the monetary remedy sought, and add several individual respondents.

The respondents sought to strike the amendments and remove the existing individual respondents.

The Tribunal allowed the amendments relating to the applicant's self-description, health effects, and increased monetary remedies, but denied the addition of new allegations and systemic discrimination claims.

The Tribunal removed one individual respondent whose involvement was tangential, but retained two others who played a central role in the employment relationship.

The applicant's request for interim remedies was denied due to a lack of supporting evidence.

The applicant requested to add the Teamsters Local Union as a party to his human rights application.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding insufficient grounds to make the union or its business agents a party.

The Tribunal also set a schedule for written submissions on the respondent's request to defer the application pending the resolution of a related grievance arbitration, before scheduling mediation.

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled Case Resolution Conference and failed to file submissions regarding a deferral request or any other documents.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed as abandoned.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to contact the Tribunal within 30 days to explain his absence and failure to comply with the Rules, failing which the application would be dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application against his former employer, an interprovincial trucking company.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss to determine whether the matter fell under federal or provincial jurisdiction.

Finding that the employer's business involved interprovincial transportation and the applicant's work maintaining trucks was integral to that federal undertaking, the Tribunal concluded it lacked jurisdiction.

The application was dismissed as the matter falls under the Canadian Human Rights Act.

The respondents requested the dismissal of a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, sex, and family status.

They argued the application was barred by the internal complaint process of the Children's Aid Society and by the statutory immunity provided under section 15(6) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that no other proceeding had appropriately dealt with the substance of the application and that the statutory immunity in the CFSA does not override the primacy of the Human Rights Code.