HRTO 2009

The applicant filed a request to expedite proceedings and a request for an interim remedy in relation to human rights applications alleging breach of settlement, discrimination on the basis of disability, and reprisal.

The Tribunal denied the request to expedite, finding that the applicant's financial pressures and resulting stress did not meet the high threshold of truly urgent circumstances.

The Tribunal also denied the request for an interim remedy of returning to work with accommodation, as the applicant failed to provide the required signed declarations to establish an evidentiary foundation and the extraordinary measure was not justified.

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

The respondents argued the application was barred under s. 34(11) of the Human Rights Code because the applicant had previously commenced a civil action for wrongful dismissal that also alleged Code violations and sought related remedies.

The Tribunal found that the civil action, which remained active, sought a remedy under s. 46.1 for the alleged Code infringement.

Consequently, the Tribunal determined it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the application as barred by s. 34(11).

The applicant filed multiple applications alleging discrimination in the provision of services, claiming he was subjected to homophobic slurs while attending minor league hockey games as a spectator.

The respondents requested that the applications be deferred pending the determination of preliminary jurisdictional issues in four transitional applications filed by the applicant under the old Code.

The Tribunal granted the request and deferred the applications, declining to rule on the respondents' claims of abuse of process and vexatious litigation at this stage.

The respondent requested that the applicant's human rights application be deferred pending the resolution of a grievance filed by her union.

The applicant opposed the deferral, arguing that the grievance process was stalled because the union would not proceed until she returned to work, which was not foreseeable.

The Tribunal found that there was no indication the adjourned grievance proceedings were likely to resume, and the union had not communicated any intention to proceed.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that deferral was not appropriate and dismissed the respondent's request.

The applicant requested an order to amend her human rights complaint to specify remedies and add the grounds of age, race, and ethnic origin.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that remedies do not require a formal amendment and that the applicant's submissions regarding the additional grounds failed to allege specific acts of discrimination by the respondent on those bases.

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

The Tribunal previously issued an interim decision noting the applicant's intention to withdraw and directing him to file a Request to Withdraw, failing which the application would be dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to communicate with the Tribunal by the specified deadline.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned pursuant to Rule 5.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant filed an application alleging reprisal in employment.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application did not link the alleged unfair treatment to a prohibited ground of discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant failed to provide submissions explaining why the application fell within the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction to inquire into general claims of unfairness outside the Code.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the ground of record of offences, specifically an impaired driving conviction.

The respondent challenged the Tribunal's jurisdiction, arguing the applicant did not have a record of offences within the meaning of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal noted that an impaired driving conviction under the federal Criminal Code requires a pardon to fall under the Code's definition.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide submissions on whether he has received a pardon, failing which the application may be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be dismissed for abuse of process after the applicant failed to file a Statement of Delivery regarding document production, as previously directed by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision setting a schedule for written submissions on the respondent's request and scheduling a teleconference hearing.

The Tribunal warned that if the applicant failed to provide submissions and file the Statement of Delivery, the application would be dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the Toronto Police Services Board and Mike Earl.

The Toronto Police Association (TPA) requested non-party intervenor status, arguing that the remedies sought, including reinstatement, and a request for disclosure of personal information about TPA members, could affect its collective agreement and members.

The applicant opposed the request, citing delay and potential disruption.

The Tribunal found no undue delay and granted the TPA non-party intervenor status to address the disclosure request and remedies as they may affect the collective agreement and its members.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination during a vocational rehabilitation program.

The respondents filed responses raising preliminary issues, including the Tribunal's lack of jurisdiction over the Government of Canada, delay in filing the application beyond the one-year limitation period, and a request to remove the individually named respondents.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide written submissions on the jurisdictional issue and scheduled a conference call to hear submissions on the issues of delay and the removal of the personal respondents.

The applicant filed a human rights application.

The respondent requested and was granted an extension of time to file its Response, but failed to do so by the extended deadline.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent of the consequences of failing to respond under Rule 5.5 and granted a final seven-day period to file a Response along with an explanation for the delay.

The Canadian Auto Workers Local 1000 filed a Request to Intervene in the human rights application.

As the workplace is unionized and neither the applicant nor the respondents objected, the Tribunal granted the union intervenor status.

The applicant filed an Application alleging reprisal in employment by the respondents.

The Tribunal noted that the Application did not allege facts within the scope of section 8 of the Human Rights Code, such as attempting to claim or enforce rights under the Code.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision ordering the applicant to file submissions setting out precisely how the respondents engaged in reprisal contrary to section 8, before determining issues of deferral and intervention.

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

She filed a Request to Expedite Proceedings to seek further accommodations for upcoming examinations.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate truly urgent circumstances that would warrant special consideration for quick processing.

The Tribunal also directed the applicant to provide submissions on whether the application should be deferred pending her related judicial review application before the Divisional Court.

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

The respondents failed to file a response within the required 35-day period.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondents that failure to participate could lead to orders against them without their participation, pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondents were given a final deadline of August 25, 2009, to file a response and explain the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, claiming the respondents failed to consider his medical disability during the admissions process for an MBA program.

The applicant also filed a Request to Expedite Proceedings to be considered for admission in the upcoming academic year.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding the applicant failed to demonstrate truly urgent circumstances or compelling harm that would result if the request was denied.

The applicant filed an Application alleging that the respondent discriminated against her on the basis of a record of offences when it terminated her employment as a debt collector.

The termination allegedly resulted from a lawsuit falsely accusing her of disclosing a debtor's debt to a neighbour.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the allegations did not fall within the Code's definition of 'record of offences', which requires a pardoned criminal conviction or a provincial offence conviction.

The applicant failed to provide submissions, and the Application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the application because the facts were part of an ongoing union grievance.

The applicant agreed to the deferral.

The Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application pending the conclusion of the grievance proceeding, noting that the labour arbitrator has the authority to interpret and apply the Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the school board and 22 individual respondents.

The respondent school board requested the removal of the individual respondents.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the school board had the ability to remedy any human rights violations, including through systemic changes, and that keeping the individuals as respondents would unnecessarily prolong and complicate the hearing process.