HRTO 2009

The applicant filed a Request to Expedite his human rights application, citing high levels of anxiety until the matter is resolved.

The Tribunal reviewed the request and found that the applicant did not meet the high threshold required for expedition.

The Tribunal noted that general claims of anxiety and unsupported assertions of harm to health do not justify prioritizing the application over other matters.

The request to expedite was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application alleging reprisal in employment after raising health and safety concerns and disputing discipline.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide submissions on how the alleged reprisal related to the Human Rights Code.

Finding that the applicant did not allege he attempted to claim or enforce rights under the Code, the Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

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

A hearing was scheduled and proper notice was sent to the applicant.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing without providing any explanation.

The respondents attended and were represented.

Due to the applicant's failure to attend, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

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

The corporate respondent and three personal respondents requested the removal of the personal respondents.

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal granted the request, finding the corporate respondent accepted liability and the personal respondents' conduct was not central to the allegations.

The Tribunal scheduled a teleconference to hear submissions on the corporate respondent's requests to dismiss part of the application due to a prior settlement and to defer the remainder pending an ongoing union grievance.

The applicant, a security guard, alleged discrimination based on ethnic origin and accent after being transferred at the request of the LCBO.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal removed the personal respondent, as the corporate respondent accepted vicarious liability.

The Tribunal declined to add the union as a party but added the applicant's employer, G4S, as a respondent.

The Tribunal also dismissed the LCBO's requests to dismiss the application for lack of a prima facie case and as an abuse of process, finding that the broad interpretation of employment could encompass the relationship between the applicant and the LCBO.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging his employment was terminated contrary to the Code.

He also filed a Request to Expedite the Application, seeking to have the circumstances known to the members prior to an upcoming Annual General Meeting.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate truly urgent circumstances or that a remedy would be moot without expediting the process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging racial profiling by police.

He had previously commenced a civil action seeking damages for racial profiling and Charter violations arising from the same incident.

The Tribunal held that section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code bars an application where a civil proceeding has been commenced seeking remedies for a Code infringement based on the same factual context, even if section 46.1 is not expressly pleaded.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the Ministry of the Attorney General, and subsequently amended it to add the Toronto Police Services Board and William Blair as respondents.

The newly added respondents failed to file a Response within the required 35 days.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the non-responding respondents to file a Response within 14 days, along with an explanation for the delay, warning that failure to do so could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice to them pursuant to Rule 5.5.

During the hearing of these human rights applications, several interim issues arose.

The Tribunal ruled that various corporate documents were arguably relevant and admissible, despite allegations they were improperly obtained.

The Tribunal denied a request for the production of personal emails from a dating website, finding them irrelevant at this stage.

A document detailing business trips was admitted as an exhibit, and the Tribunal agreed to digitally record the remainder of the hearing.

The applicant filed a transitional application alleging discrimination in employment and reprisal on the basis of sex.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed the applicant's requests to amend the application and to add the parent corporation of her employers as a respondent.

The Tribunal found that the additional allegations were already properly before it and did not require formal amendment.

The Tribunal also exercised its discretion to add the parent corporation as a respondent, noting that the application set out facts that could give rise to a finding of liability against it and that no prejudice was asserted.

The applicant, a former police officer, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race and disability, claiming his resignation and plea bargain were forced.

The respondents sought early dismissal of the application for abuse of process and lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant requested production of documents.

The Tribunal deferred the motion to dismiss, directing that a Case Resolution Conference be scheduled to hear evidence on whether the applicant signed the resignation and plea bargain under duress.

The Tribunal also directed the parties to file revised production requests limited to the preliminary issues.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability, race, and place of origin by the respondent police service during his apprehension under the Mental Health Act.

The applicant, who has paranoid schizophrenia, had threatened suicide, prompting a police response.

He alleged excessive force was used due to stereotypes.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the police officers' actions, including the decision to apprehend and the force used, were based on the applicant's actual behaviour and threats of self-harm, not on any Code-protected grounds.

The Commission and the complainant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed the human rights complaint for lack of evidence.

The Commission admitted that its counsel had erroneously advised the unrepresented complainant that he did not need to submit any evidence for the written hearing.

The Tribunal found that it would be unfair to deprive the complainant of a hearing on the merits due to his reasonable reliance on the Commission's incorrect advice.

The request for reconsideration was granted, as the unfairness to the complainant outweighed the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions, especially since the respondent had never participated in the proceedings.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination and reprisal.

The Tribunal noted that the subject-matter appeared to be the same as a previous complaint filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission, which may bar the current application under section 53(8) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal adjourned the scheduled hearing and ordered the parties to provide written submissions on whether the application is jurisdictionally barred.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the Toronto Transit Commission and the City of Toronto.

The City of Toronto filed a Request for Order seeking to be removed as a respondent, which was consented to by the other parties.

The Tribunal granted the request and amended the style of cause to remove the City of Toronto as a respondent.

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation session after previously missing a hearing date.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed.

The Tribunal noted the resources expended by both the Tribunal and the respondent, but declined to dismiss the application without giving the applicant an opportunity to respond.

The applicant was directed to provide an explanation for her absence, failing which the application may be deemed abandoned and dismissed.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision dismissing her human rights application for failure to attend a Case Resolution Conference.

She claimed she did not receive notice of the hearing.

The Tribunal directed her to provide details supporting this claim, but she failed to respond despite being given ample opportunity.

The Tribunal denied the request for reconsideration, finding the applicant failed to satisfy the requirements of Rule 25.5.

The applicant requested that the Tribunal reconsider an interim decision granting intervenor status to the Windsor Police Services.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that under Section 45.7(1) of the Human Rights Code and Rule 26 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, only final decisions are subject to reconsideration.

The Tribunal also declined to defer the application based on the applicant's stated intention to file a further application.

The applicant filed an application under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code and sought to amend it to add another personal respondent and a new allegation.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that transitional applications must be based on the subject matter of the original complaint filed with the Commission, and that permitting the amendment would detract from the expeditious nature of the proceeding.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking to withdraw from a human rights complaint alleging reprisal.

Neither the complainant nor the respondent opposed the request.

The Tribunal granted the Commission leave to withdraw and ordered it removed from the style of cause.