HRTO 2009

The respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking further particulars prior to a scheduled mediation, including a copy of the original human rights complaint and specific details about the alleged incidents.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the Tribunal's Rules provide for production and statements of additional facts if mediation does not resolve the application, and that requests for particulars prior to mediation are discouraged.

The Tribunal enclosed a copy of the original complaint for certainty and directed the respondent to confirm its participation in the mediation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by a judge, a mental health centre, and a treatment team.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to be filed more than one year after the last incident.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that it lacked jurisdiction over the judicial decision and that the applicant failed to provide sufficient details to establish that the delay in filing was incurred in good faith.

The applicant filed a human rights application.

The respondents failed to file their Responses within the required 35-day period.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondents that failure to file Responses by a specified extended deadline could result in the Tribunal proceeding without their participation and deeming them to have accepted the allegations.

The applicant filed transitional applications against her employer and union alleging failure to accommodate her multiple chemical sensitivity.

The respondents requested orders to dismiss or defer the applications.

The Tribunal deferred the application against the employer because an arbitrator remained seized of the accommodation plan implementation.

For the application against the union, the Tribunal scheduled a hearing for oral submissions on whether the application set out facts that could found a breach of the Code, noting that failure to represent an employee on a human rights matter is not automatically a Code breach.

The applicant requested that her human rights application be deferred pending the outcome of a related union grievance proceeding.

The respondent County consented to the deferral.

The Tribunal noted its general practice of deferring applications where an ongoing grievance under a collective agreement involves the same facts and human rights issues, as grievance arbitrators have the authority to enforce human rights statutes.

Finding substantial overlap between the application and the grievance, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process.

Following a finding that the respondent discriminated against the applicant by failing to rehire him because of his disability, the Tribunal held a hearing to determine the appropriate remedy.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was not entitled to lost wages because he had completely mitigated his losses by obtaining new employment shortly after his lay-off.

The Tribunal awarded the applicant $5,000 as monetary compensation for the frustration and insult he suffered from the breach of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed applications under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code, which applies to complaints previously filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

The Tribunal sought information on the status of the underlying complaints.

The Commission advised that although it received complaint forms from the applicant, the files were closed at his request before being formally filed.

The Tribunal found that the complaints were not 'filed' with the Commission within the meaning of section 53(1).

Consequently, the applicant could not proceed under section 53(3), and the applications were dismissed, without prejudice to his right to file a new application under section 34.

The respondents Petroff Partnership Architects and Gary Freeman requested to be removed as parties to the human rights application, arguing they were never the applicant's employers or agents of the employer.

The applicant did not respond to the request and the other respondents consented.

The Tribunal found that the application did not allege dealings in respect of employment or any other social area covered by the Code against these two respondents.

The request was granted and Petroff and Freeman were removed as parties.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in her employment termination more than one year after the last incident.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed for delay.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to file written submissions explaining why the delay was incurred in good faith and why no substantial prejudice would result, pursuant to section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw her human rights application pursuant to Rule 10 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondents made no submissions on the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The respondent requested an interim order requiring the self-represented applicant to undergo a psychiatric evaluation to confirm his capacity to represent himself, or alternatively, a stay of proceedings.

The respondent argued the applicant's failure to participate in mediation and provide required documents demonstrated incompetence.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no basis on the information provided to order a medical examination or stay the proceedings.

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

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed because it was filed beyond the one-year time limit prescribed in section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the last incident occurred more than a year before the application was filed and that the applicant failed to demonstrate that the delay was incurred in good faith.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and failure to accommodate on the basis of disability following a workplace injury.

The respondent requested early dismissal, arguing the matter had been resolved through a union grievance process, though the applicant had not signed the settlement.

The Tribunal denied the early dismissal request because no full and final release was signed, and directed the respondent to file a full Response.

The Tribunal also granted the union's request to intervene in the proceedings, noting its interest in the accommodation process and collective agreement implications.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, and creed arising from his arrest by the respondent police service.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal denied the applicant's request for an order to submit evidence, noting no such order is required.

The Tribunal also directed the parties to file written submissions on several outstanding preliminary issues, including whether the application was filed outside the one-year time limit, whether certain individual respondents should be added or removed, and whether the application disclosed a prima facie case of discrimination.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment and reprisal, three and a half years after his termination.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss due to the delay.

After receiving the applicant's written submissions explaining the delay, the Tribunal issued an interim decision scheduling a teleconference hearing to determine whether the delay was incurred in good faith and whether substantial prejudice would result, pursuant to section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability regarding the calculation of her retirement allowance.

The respondents raised the issue of timeliness, as the application was filed more than one year after the last incident.

The Tribunal considered whether the delay was incurred in good faith under section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal rejected the applicant's arguments that she was ignorant of the time limit, relied on statements from the respondents, and was prevented from filing due to her disability.

Finding that the delay was not incurred in good faith, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application against her former employer, which was in receivership, and several individual employees.

The corporate respondent was subject to a court-ordered stay of proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the stay did not apply to the personal respondents to the extent the applicant alleged individual liability for workplace harassment under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal declined to remove the corporate respondent as a party, noting that doing so might prejudice the personal respondents' ability to seek to lift the stay.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging workplace discrimination.

The corporate respondent was bankrupt, and the Tribunal previously ruled the application was stayed under section 69 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The applicant sought to remove the corporate respondent and proceed against the personal respondents.

The Tribunal held that the application against the corporate respondent was void, but the stay did not prevent the applicant from proceeding against the personal respondents in their individual capacities.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the application against one personal respondent for failing to make out a prima facie case, and directed submissions on whether the remaining claims were out of time.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discriminatory dismissal and requested that the matter be expedited due to financial hardship.

The Tribunal denied the request to expedite, finding that financial hardship does not generally constitute an urgent circumstance requiring priority over other matters under the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to consolidate two human rights applications involving the same parties and employment situation, and to amend the name of a personal respondent.

The Tribunal granted the request, ordering that the applications be heard together under the current Rules of Procedure and amending the personal respondent's name from Nadia Deeb to Nadjeda Glebova.