HRTO 2009

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the ground of disability, claiming his medical leave was a factor in his temporary layoff.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the outcome of a concurrent claim filed by the applicant under the Employment Standards Act regarding the same layoff.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that deferral was appropriate to avoid concurrent proceedings dealing with the same factual issues.

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

The respondents and the applicant's union requested that the application be deferred because a concurrent grievance based on the same facts and human rights issues was proceeding to arbitration.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process, noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority to decide human rights issues.

The applicant filed an application alleging reprisal in employment after being laid off.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide written submissions explaining how her concerns related to the Human Rights Code.

The applicant failed to identify any ground of discrimination or explain how her dismissal was connected to an attempt to claim or enforce rights under the Code.

The Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction over the application and dismissed it.

The respondent failed to file a Response to the Application within the required timeline.

After the Tribunal issued an Interim Decision noting the failure, the respondent's solicitor requested an extension, claiming the Application was never received due to a municipal strike.

The applicant opposed the request, arguing the respondent was aware of the Application and was delaying the process.

The Tribunal granted the respondent's request to file a Response but abridged the usual time to 20 days, noting the respondent's prior awareness of the dispute.

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

The respondents requested an early dismissal or deferral of the application, arguing that a concurrent civil action for libel against the applicant dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss, finding that the civil action had not yet made any determinations dealing with the substance of the human rights application.

The Tribunal also denied the request to defer, noting that the two proceedings involved different legal theories and remedies, and that it would be unfair to require the applicant to wait for the civil action to conclude before pursuing his human rights claims.

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

A Receivership Order stayed proceedings against the corporate respondent.

The applicant withdrew allegations against the corporate respondent and sought to continue against the personal respondent.

The Tribunal found the Receivership Order did not stay proceedings against the personal respondent and directed the matter to proceed against him alone.

The applicant, a tenant and elected tenant representative in a social housing complex, alleged that the respondent housing corporation discriminated against him on the basis of race, ethnic origin, and disability.

He claimed he was treated as a subordinate, excluded from responsibilities, and ultimately removed from his position for discriminatory reasons.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant's evidence unreliable and preferring the respondent's evidence.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's removal as a tenant representative was due to his own inappropriate and disruptive behaviour, including an incident where he entered restricted staff offices without permission, rather than any discriminatory animus.

The respondent requested that the human rights application alleging workplace discrimination be deferred pending the completion of a concurrent grievance proceeding based on substantially the same facts.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting its normal approach is to defer to concurrent grievance proceedings where an arbitrator has the authority to deal with the human rights issues raised.

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

The respondents requested that the application be deferred pending the completion of a concurrent grievance proceeding based on substantially the same facts.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting its normal approach is to defer to concurrent legal proceedings where an arbitrator has the authority to deal with human rights issues.

The applicant filed an application alleging racial discrimination by his employer, Rogers Communications Inc. The Tribunal noted that the respondent is a federally regulated national telecommunications company and falls under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

After the applicant failed to provide submissions on jurisdiction, the Tribunal dismissed the application pursuant to Rule 13.1 of its Rules of Procedure.

The respondents requested reconsideration of an Interim Decision that found the applicant had established a prima facie case of discrimination.

The Tribunal dismissed the request as premature, finding that the Interim Decision was not a final decision disposing of the central issues in the complaint.

The Tribunal also provided clarification on the issues remaining in dispute for the upcoming hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on creed after the respondent correctional complex failed to return his property upon release.

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

The applicant submitted that the delay was due to his subsequent incarceration in Quebec.

The Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the delay was not incurred in good faith, and there was no evidence of substantial prejudice to the respondent.

The Tribunal directed that the application continue to be processed and served on the respondent.

The applicant filed an application relating to the special diet allowance under the Ontario Disability Support Program.

The Tribunal noted that over one hundred similar complaints had been referred and were proceeding under a lead case approach.

The Tribunal ordered that no further steps be required in this application until the final decision in the lead cases is issued, at which point the applicant must advise how he wishes to proceed.

The applicant filed human rights applications against corporate and personal respondents.

The respondents requested an order to remove three personal respondents from the proceedings.

The applicant consented to the removal of two but objected to the removal of one personal respondent.

The Tribunal applied the factors for removing a personal respondent and found that the individual's conduct was a central issue in the failure to accommodate claim, and that the applicant was seeking an apology specifically from her.

The Tribunal concluded there was a compelling reason to continue the application against the personal respondent and dismissed the request for removal.

The applicant requested an order to add an individual as a respondent to his human rights application.

Counsel for the organizational respondent confirmed understanding that the individual would be added and that their response would apply to him as well.

The Tribunal granted the request and amended the style of cause accordingly.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race against his former partner, a judge, and the Ontario Court of Justice regarding family law proceedings.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that personal relationships are not covered by the Code, and that judicial decisions and comments made during court proceedings do not constitute a 'service' within the meaning of the Code.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant alleged age discrimination and reprisal after the respondent law firm refused to hire him as a summer or articling student.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application had been appropriately dealt with by the Law Society of Upper Canada (LSUC).

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the LSUC did not institute proceedings and therefore did not deal with the substance of the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination after being denied income support by the Disability Adjudication Unit and the Social Benefits Tribunal, which found he did not meet the statutory definition of 'disability'.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario dismissed the application, holding that it lacks jurisdiction to review the adjudicative decisions of another statutory tribunal, as that role belongs to the Divisional Court.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that his conviction and sentencing for sexual assault by a Superior Court judge constituted discrimination in the provision of services.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

The Tribunal held that the content, reasons, and result of a court decision are not a 'service' within the meaning of section 1 of the Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed an application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code alleging discrimination by the respondent on the basis of race, disability, and ancestry.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application failed to indicate how the respondent allegedly violated the Code.

The applicant's response provided no further information.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it did not raise matters within its jurisdiction.