HRTO 2009

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

The respondent filed a partial response requesting early dismissal on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision scheduling a teleconference to determine the preliminary issue of the release, noting that section 43(2) of the Human Rights Code requires affording parties an opportunity to make oral submissions before finally disposing of an application.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in housing two years after the last incident.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed for delay.

The applicant claimed she was advised to wait for a Privacy Commissioner's report before filing.

The Tribunal found no reason to await the report, as it could not address allegations of discrimination, and concluded the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by her condominium corporation.

The respondent failed to file a response despite being served with the application and a subsequent interim decision.

The Tribunal deferred deciding on the respondent's failure to respond until the applicant submitted documents from a prior related court proceeding, and ordered the application to be sent to additional condominium officials.

The applicant filed a human rights application naming a corporate respondent and several individuals, including a former supervisor.

The corporate respondent declined to provide the former supervisor's contact information without a Tribunal order.

The Tribunal ordered the corporate respondent to provide the last known mailing address and telephone number for the former employee, holding that it had the authority to require the production of such information under Rule 1.7(p) of the Part IV Rules.

The respondents brought a Request for Order during Proceedings to strike a letter from the record.

The letter was an offer to settle the human rights complaint and was written on a without prejudice basis.

The applicant objected, arguing the privilege was hers to waive.

The Tribunal held that the letter was privileged, the privilege belonged to the respondents, and it had not been waived.

The Request for Order was granted and the letter was sealed.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex and age, reprisal, and sexual solicitation.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 241 requested to intervene, arguing the remedies sought could affect its members.

The applicant objected, citing a conflict of interest.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene, finding the application raised issues of general interest to the union, with the extent of participation to be determined by the presiding adjudicator.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discriminatory comments were made during a police interview by a police sergeant and a volunteer interpreter.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the volunteer interpreter, finding that she was not providing a service within the meaning of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to produce a transcript of the interview and scheduled a conference call hearing to address whether the remaining allegations amount to discrimination in services, whether the application was timely, and whether it should be dismissed because the issues were dealt with in the applicant's criminal trial.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, place of origin, and ethnic origin.

The respondents sought to defer the application pending the resolution of a grievance filed by the applicant's union.

The applicant opposed the deferral, asserting that the union declined to pursue her claim and no grievance was ongoing.

The Tribunal directed the respondents and the union to provide further written submissions on the status of the grievance before making a decision on the deferral request.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging sex discrimination in 2005.

In 2008, the Commission accepted an amendment adding the ground of disability and alleging a failure to accommodate between 2003 and 2005.

The respondents brought a preliminary request to strike the amendment as out of time.

The Tribunal found that the amendment was filed more than three years after the last alleged incident of failure to accommodate.

As the applicant offered no explanation for the delay to satisfy the good faith requirement under section 34(2) of the Code, the Tribunal granted the respondents' request and struck the amendment.

The applicants filed human rights applications alleging discrimination in housing on the basis of disability, citing ongoing health and safety concerns resulting from renovations to their condominium building.

They requested that the applications be expedited.

The Tribunal found that the uncontradicted health and safety concerns constituted urgent circumstances and granted the request to expedite, directing the parties to mediation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, citing harassment and a five-day suspension.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred pending the completion of related grievance proceedings filed by the applicant's union.

The Tribunal found that the grievances were based on substantially the same facts and human rights issues as the application.

Applying its normal approach to concurrent legal proceedings, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance process.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

The respondent failed to file a Response within the required timeframe, despite requesting and being granted an extension of time.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent that failure to file a Response by a final deadline could result in the Tribunal proceeding without his participation and deeming him to have accepted the allegations.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging racial discrimination after his employment was terminated due to a plant closure.

The respondent requested early dismissal of the application because the applicant had signed a full and final release in exchange for an enhanced severance package.

The applicant argued he was distraught and under economic duress when he signed the release.

The Tribunal found that the applicant understood the release and that his financial difficulties did not amount to economic duress.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment against her former employer and the labour arbitrator who upheld her discharge.

The arbitrator requested dismissal on the basis of judicial immunity and issue estoppel.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the arbitrator, finding that an adjudicative decision is not a 'service' within the meaning of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to advise whether she intended to continue the application against her former employer, pending a potential section 45.1 dismissal.

The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination contrary to the Human Rights Code and requested that the matter be expedited due to stress from ongoing discrimination.

The Tribunal denied the request to expedite, finding that the applicant's circumstances did not meet the high threshold of true urgency required to prioritize the application over other matters.

The applicant filed a Request for Order during Proceeding to add the City of Toronto as a respondent to a human rights application.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal ordered that the City of Toronto be added as a respondent, without prejudice to its right to raise delay arguments, and directed it to file a response within 60 days.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision which found that the adjudication of legal disputes by the courts does not constitute 'services' under section 1 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant submitted a newspaper article, a dictionary definition, and previous case law in support of his request.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant failed to provide any new facts or evidence that could be determinative of the case and could not reasonably have been obtained earlier, as required by Rule 25.5.

The applicant filed a human rights application while a wrongful dismissal proceeding was in progress.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, which bars duplicate proceedings.

After reviewing the applicant's draft Statement of Claim, the Tribunal found it did not explicitly refer to the Code or seek damages for its violation.

The Tribunal concluded it was not plain and obvious that the application was barred and directed that it be processed and delivered to the respondent.

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

The respondent failed to file a Response within the required 35-day period.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent of the consequences of failing to participate, including the possibility of the Tribunal proceeding without further notice under Rule 5.5.

The Tribunal granted the respondent 10 days to file a Response along with an explanation for the delay.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to be filed outside the one-year limitation period and involved the same subject-matter as a prior complaint filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

The applicant provided submissions on the delay but did not address the duplicate subject-matter.

The Tribunal found that the application was substantially the same as the prior Commission complaint, which had been dismissed.

Pursuant to section 53(8) of the Human Rights Code, the Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.