HRTO 2009

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

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking leave to amend their Response to add facts not in their possession at the time of filing.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding no apparent prejudice given the early stage of the proceedings, and allowed the applicant to file a supplementary Reply.

The applicant filed a Request to Expedite the Application, alleging that the corporate respondent was in financial trouble and might close, which would cause him to lose his right to a hearing.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant's concern about a possible closure was speculative and did not meet the high threshold required to demonstrate truly urgent circumstances.

The applicant filed a human rights application challenging the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board's policy on 'non-work related conditions', which had initially resulted in a denial of her benefits when she stopped working due to pregnancy.

The respondent requested an order dismissing the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the essence of the complaint was a challenge to an adjudicative decision, and purely adjudicative functions do not constitute a 'service' under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability regarding a 1994 layoff that reduced his pension entitlement.

The respondent requested early dismissal due to delay and a signed release.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant's delay was incurred in good faith due to language barriers, the respondent established substantial prejudice because relevant documents and witnesses from the 1994 restructuring were no longer available.

The application was dismissed under section 34 of the Code.

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

The applicant's union had also filed a grievance on her behalf based on substantially the same facts and issues, which was scheduled for arbitration.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the completion of the grievance proceeding.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting its normal approach is to defer to concurrent legal proceedings where the other decision-maker has the authority to deal with the human rights issues raised.

The applicant, who has a hearing impairment, alleged that the respondent property management company discriminated against him by seeking to terminate his tenancy early due to complaints about his dog's barking.

The dog assisted the applicant by alerting him to sounds.

The Tribunal found that the respondent failed in its procedural duty to inquire about the applicant's disability-related needs upon learning the dog might be a service animal.

However, because the respondent had other valid, non-discriminatory reasons to terminate the tenancy, the Tribunal awarded only nominal damages of $200 for the infringement of the inherent right to be free from discrimination, and ordered the respondent to undergo human rights training.

The respondent employer requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the applicant's human rights application pending the conclusion of a grievance and arbitration procedure.

The application alleged failure to accommodate a disability and reprisal.

The Tribunal denied the request to defer, finding that the central issues of accommodation and reprisal were not covered by the ongoing grievances.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application form indicated the last event occurred in 1995.

The applicant clarified that 1995 was the end of his sick leave, but the alleged discrimination occurred in 2008 and 2009 when a new collective agreement was negotiated and he was denied an early retirement package.

The Tribunal found the application appeared timely at this preliminary stage and directed that it be served on the respondents.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment.

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking early dismissal of the application on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release.

The respondents also requested the removal of two respondents from the application.

The Tribunal scheduled a one-day hearing to consider the preliminary issues, noting that section 43(2) of the Code requires affording parties a chance to make oral submissions before finally disposing of an application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and assault by members of the respondent police service.

The respondent raised a delay issue, noting the application was filed beyond the one-year limitation period under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the parties to provide written submissions on whether the delay was incurred in good faith and whether substantial prejudice would result.

The applicant in a transitional human rights application requested an order to strike the submissions filed by the respondent with their Response form, arguing they were irrelevant to his reprisal complaint.

The Tribunal denied the request, explaining that under Rule 13.2 of the Transitional Rules, the respondent was required to file a copy of any response previously filed with the Commission.

The Tribunal noted that relevance and admissibility would be determined at the hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability against a corporate respondent and a personal respondent.

At the scheduled hearing, the personal respondent failed to appear.

The applicant and the representative for the corporate respondent advised they had reached a verbal settlement and wished to proceed against the personal respondent only.

Given the complex and acrimonious relationship between the respondents and ongoing civil litigation regarding their partnership, the Tribunal adjourned the hearing to ensure the personal respondent received proper notice and to seek clarification on the corporate authority and vicarious liability issues.

The respondents requested the early dismissal of a human rights application, arguing it was barred by section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code because the applicant had filed a counterclaim in a concurrent civil proceeding based on the same facts.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that while the civil counterclaim alleged discriminatory and harassing behaviour, it did not explicitly claim an infringement of the Code or seek a remedy under section 46.1.

The Tribunal directed the parties to provide written submissions on whether the application should be deferred pending the completion of the civil litigation.

The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision, seeking to introduce a further medical report and typewritten notes as new evidence under Rule 25.5(a).

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant provided no explanation as to why the evidence could not have been obtained earlier for the Case Resolution Conference.

Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that even if the evidence had been admitted, it would not have altered the original decision.

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.

The respondent filed submissions supporting deferral, noting the ongoing arbitration.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance arbitration to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions.

The applicant, a curb side assistant, sustained serious neck and back injuries in a bus accident and requested modified duties upon returning to work.

The respondent employer refused to accommodate her in a pre-arranged post, claiming she did not have a 'bona fide disability' because her doctor's note did not explicitly use the term 'disabled'.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario found that the applicant had a disability under the Code and that the respondent failed to fulfill both its procedural and substantive duties to accommodate her up to the point of undue hardship.

The Tribunal awarded compensation for lost wages, medical expenses, and $10,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and ordered the respondent to undergo human rights training.

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

The corporate respondent filed a Response, but the individual respondent failed to do so by the deadline.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the individual respondent of the consequences of failing to respond under Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, and granted an extension to September 11, 2009, to file a Response and an explanation for the delay.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability after his 'B' driver's licence was downgraded to a 'G' licence due to a heart condition.

The respondent challenged the Tribunal's jurisdiction, arguing that the applicant's efforts to reinstate his licence fell under s. 17(2) of O. Reg. 340/94, which is exempted from the Human Rights Code by s. 19(2).

The Tribunal found that the respondent failed to clearly demonstrate it was operating under s. 17(2), as its communications referred to a waiver application under s. 21, which is not exempt from the Code.

The Tribunal concluded it has jurisdiction to hear the application.

The applicant in a human rights complaint alleging discrimination in employment based on disability sought an order for the production of numerous documents.

The Tribunal reviewed the requests and denied orders for documents the respondents claimed to have already produced, documents that did not exist and would need to be created, and documents outside the relevant time period.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to produce a list of correspondence sent to the applicant while she was on sick leave, and deferred other contested production issues to be addressed at the upcoming Case Resolution Conference.

The York University Faculty Association (YUFA) brought a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking leave to intervene in a human rights application filed by a faculty member against the university.

The applicant objected to the intervention on various grounds, including alleged bad faith and insufficient particulars.

The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's objections, finding that YUFA, as the applicant's bargaining agent, had a substantial interest in the proceedings and was involved in concurrent related proceedings.

The request to intervene was granted, with the extent of participation to be determined by the presiding adjudicator at the hearing.