HRTO 2009

The respondent requested the dismissal of the human rights application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application—whether the respondent could have accommodated the applicant's permanent medical restrictions in 2003—had been appropriately dealt with in WSIB proceedings.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the WSIAT decision relied upon by the respondent only determined the re-employment obligation and did not address the accommodation issue.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the WSIB and its employees on the basis of disability and creed in the handling of his Labour Market Re-entry program and benefits.

The respondents brought a request to dismiss the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that the actions complained of, including the denial of accommodation and bereavement leave, fell within the WSIB's adjudicative functions.

As purely adjudicative functions do not constitute a 'service' under the Human Rights Code, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed two human rights applications against her former employer and her union.

The employer requested dismissal on the basis that the original complaint was dismissed by the Commission and not continued under section 53 of the Code.

The union requested dismissal or deferral pending an ongoing grievance arbitration regarding the applicant's termination.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the employer for lack of jurisdiction, as the complaint was not a 'continued' complaint.

The Tribunal deferred the application against the union pending the conclusion of the grievance arbitration, finding it fair, just, and expeditious to avoid concurrent proceedings on the same issues.

The applicant alleged discrimination by the Law Society of Upper Canada for failing to accommodate her in the licensing process.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the application because the applicant had a pending Application for Judicial Review before the Divisional Court on the same facts and issues.

The Tribunal ordered the application deferred to avoid concurrent proceedings and the possibility of inconsistent decisions, noting the judicial review was scheduled to be heard imminently.

The applicant, a student with a disability, filed an application alleging discrimination regarding the respondent school board's refusal to provide transportation between a private therapy institution and the school.

The applicant requested that the proceedings be expedited due to the start of the school year.

The respondent did not oppose the request and both parties agreed to mediation.

The Tribunal granted the request to expedite in part by directing that mediation be scheduled within two weeks.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his application because he had signed a Memorandum of Settlement releasing the respondent from claims.

The applicant argued he signed under duress and raised Charter arguments.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant was attempting to re-argue issues already fully canvassed at the original hearing and failed to meet the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.

The respondent in a human rights application alleging sexual solicitation and reprisal requested an order to defer filing a Response until related criminal proceedings for sexual assault were resolved.

The respondent argued that proceeding with the human rights application would affect his Charter right to remain silent in the criminal matter.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the potential effects on the respondent's rights in the criminal proceedings outweighed the applicant's interests in avoiding delay.

The Tribunal ordered that no further steps be taken in the application for up to one year.

The applicant requested reconsideration of an interim decision that declined to add the respondents' legal counsel as parties to the proceedings.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the interim decision was not a final decision because it did not dispose of the central issues in the complaint or deprive the applicant of a remedy against the respondents.

As such, it could not be the subject of a reconsideration request under the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination, harassment, and reprisal in employment.

The respondents requested to defer the application pending a scheduled grievance arbitration before the Grievance Settlement Board on the same facts.

The applicant opposed the deferral and requested to expedite the application, citing concerns about fair representation at the arbitration.

The Tribunal dismissed the request to expedite, finding the applicant's concerns speculative.

The Tribunal granted the request to defer, noting that the grievance arbitration raised similar facts and issues and that deferral would prevent concurrent proceedings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination.

The respondents requested to defer the application pending a union grievance and to remove the personal respondents.

The Tribunal denied the deferral request because the union withdrew the grievance from arbitration.

The Tribunal granted the request to remove the personal respondents, finding that the employer assumed responsibility for their conduct and there was no prejudice to the applicant.

The applicant filed three separate human rights applications alleging discrimination in respect of services on the basis of race by different police services boards and officers.

The Tribunal gave notice of its intention to process the applications together.

The applicant objected, arguing the incidents were independent and joining them would impose an undue burden on his representative.

The Tribunal directed that the applications proceed together, finding that the complaints were identical or substantially similar in nature and that separate hearings would only add to the length, cost, and complexity of the process.

The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination on the basis of family status and requested to expedite the process due to financial hardship resulting from unemployment.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that financial pressures do not meet the high threshold of truly urgent circumstances required to prioritize the application over other matters.

The respondent hospital brought a Request for Order During Proceedings to dismiss the human rights application on the basis that it failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination and was filed outside the one-year time limit.

The Tribunal refused to dismiss the application for lack of a prima facie case, noting the low threshold at the preliminary stage and that the allegations, if true, could establish a violation.

The Tribunal scheduled a teleconference to hear submissions on whether the application should be dismissed for delay.

The applicant filed a Request for Order seeking an immediate payment of $50,000 because the individual respondent failed to file a Response to the human rights application.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that it does not order full damages without further steps when a respondent fails to respond.

The Tribunal directed the individual respondent to file a Response within 10 days, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice.

The respondents requested a last-minute adjournment of a scheduled Case Resolution Conference because a personal respondent and key witness was out of the country due to a family illness.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the respondents failed to establish exceptional circumstances, did not adequately explain their steps to locate the witness, and delayed in making the request.

The Tribunal noted that the witness's presence might not be required on the first day of the hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application against a municipal transit authority and the city.

The Tribunal previously invited submissions on whether it had jurisdiction, given that the transit authority is a federally-regulated business subject to the Canadian Human Rights Act.

The applicant did not provide submissions.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Case Direction Assessment that directed a respondent witness to testify by telephone.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, noting that Rule 25.1 only permits reconsideration of a final decision, and the direction regarding witness testimony was interlocutory.

The applicant was advised they could raise their concerns about the witness's telephone participation at the upcoming hearing.

The applicant filed a request for an interim remedy seeking an order directing the respondent school board to provide specific therapeutic supports and replace her current full-time support worker with an Educational Assistant pending the final resolution of her human rights application.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant failed to provide the necessary signed declarations to establish an evidentiary foundation.

Furthermore, the school board had already made or was willing to make the necessary referrals for therapeutic supports, and the medical reports provided did not support the immediate replacement of the current support worker.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant had also filed a grievance under a collective agreement based on the same facts and issues.

Finding that the grievance process was ongoing and raised similar facts and issues, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance arbitration process to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions.

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation and informed the Tribunal by telephone that he intended to withdraw his application.

Despite being directed to file a Request to Withdraw and receiving a subsequent Registrar's letter warning that the application would be deemed abandoned if he did not respond, the applicant failed to communicate with the Tribunal.

The application was dismissed as abandoned.