HRTO 2009

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) in the handling of his claim and benefits.

The WSIB filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking to dismiss the application for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that its adjudicative functions are not 'services' under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal scheduled a teleconference hearing to determine whether the application falls within its jurisdiction.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of 'record of offences'.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the narrative described denial of a profit sharing allotment due to absences related to illness and surgery, which did not align with the cited ground.

The applicant's counsel explained that the applicant inadvertently checked the wrong box and intended to claim discrimination based on 'disability'.

The Tribunal found it plain and obvious that the allegations related to disability, amended the application accordingly, and directed it to be served on the respondent.

The respondent hospital requested the production of the applicant's Occupational Health, Safety and Emergency Preparedness file and the removal of a personal respondent from the style of cause.

The applicant did not object.

The Tribunal removed the personal respondent, noting she was not named in the original application, and ordered the applicant to sign a release for the medical file, as it contained information relevant to the issue of accommodation.

The applicant filed a request for reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision under section 45.7 of the Human Rights Code and Rule 25.5.

The applicant sought to introduce new medical evidence but failed to explain why it could not have been obtained earlier.

The applicant also failed to demonstrate how the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the applicant did not satisfy the requirements of Rule 25.5.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw his human rights application against the respondents 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The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.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 applicant, a senior kindergarten student, filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability because the respondent school board refused to provide a dedicated Education Resource Worker (ERW) for the upcoming school year.

The applicant's father filed a Request to Expedite Proceedings, citing safety concerns.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the concerns about future actions were speculative and that resolving the application would require consideration of complex educational services, which is not suited to an expedited process.

In an interim decision, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario varied the schedule for written submissions regarding the respondents' preliminary arguments.

The adjudicator deferred the determination of the respondents' arguments concerning the interpretation of 'sex' and section 20(1) of the Human Rights Code, as well as section 2(d) of the Charter, until after the evidentiary hearing.

However, the adjudicator directed that the respondents' arguments regarding section 11(d) of the Charter, abuse of process, and delay would be determined prior to the hearing, and set a timeline for the applicant and the Attorney General to respond.

The applicant requested to add Frank Nigro as a personal respondent to a human rights application.

The Tribunal found that although he was not named in the initial application form, there was a compelling juridical reason to add him because his individual conduct was the central issue in the allegations of racial discrimination and sexual harassment.

The request to add the personal respondent was granted.

The respondent requested an early dismissal of the human rights application, arguing it was barred by s. 34(11) of the Human Rights Code due to parallel civil proceedings.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant had requested a stay of the civil proceedings initiated by the respondent, there was no indication the applicant had sought remedies under s. 46.1 of the Code in those civil proceedings.

The request for early dismissal was therefore denied.

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

The facts of the application were also the subject of several ongoing union grievances.

The Tribunal, on its own initiative, requested submissions on whether to defer the application pending the completion of the grievance proceedings.

The applicant opposed deferral due to delay in the grievance process, while the respondent and the union supported it.

The Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application, finding it to be the most fair, just, and expeditious way of proceeding, consistent with its general practice where there is an ongoing grievance based on the same facts.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment.

The respondents filed a Request for Order during Proceedings seeking to dismiss the application on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release.

The applicant failed to respond to the Request.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide written submissions indicating whether he intends to pursue the application and why the release does not bar it, failing which the application may be dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging the respondent failed to accommodate his disability.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the completion of ongoing grievance and arbitration proceedings under the collective agreement.

The applicant objected to the deferral, citing deficiencies in the union's representation.

The Tribunal deferred the application, finding no exceptional circumstances to depart from its general practice of deferring applications when concurrent grievance proceedings raise the same human rights issues.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision dismissing her human rights application.

She argued that the Tribunal violated procedural fairness by deciding the matter without hearing oral evidence from her and her witnesses, instead assuming her proposed evidence was true and finding it insufficient to establish a Code violation.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, holding that procedural fairness does not require oral evidence where an application can be resolved by assuming the applicant's best case is true.

The applicant filed an application alleging she was barred from the respondents' services and facilities as a reprisal after raising an issue about a perceived intoxicated patron.

The respondents requested early dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not allege the reprisal was linked to an attempt to claim or enforce a right under the Human Rights Code, nor did she allege discrimination based on any protected ground.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Case Resolution Conference Decision that dismissed his transitional Application.

The original decision found that a transitional Application could not be filed after the Ontario Human Rights Commission had issued a reconsideration decision.

The Tribunal denied the request for reconsideration, finding that the original decision was consistent with established jurisprudence and that the applicant was merely attempting to re-argue his case.

The applicant filed a Request for Order during Proceeding to consolidate his complaints and add three personal respondents to his transitional application under section 53(5) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal denied the request to consolidate because the second complaint filed with the Commission had been closed, leaving only one application before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal also denied the request to add the personal respondents, finding it would detract from the expeditious nature of the proceeding two years after the events, and noting that the corporate respondent would be bound by their actions in any event.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the grounds of disability, sex, and age, nearly two and a half years after her employment was terminated.

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

The applicant argued the delay was incurred in good faith because she was ignorant of her rights until a friend advised her she had a human rights case 18 months after the termination.

The Tribunal found that mere ignorance of rights does not establish good faith, especially when the applicant failed to make reasonable inquiries.

Furthermore, the applicant delayed an additional 10 months after allegedly learning of her rights before filing the application.

The application was dismissed as being outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant, a regular customer of the respondent's store, alleged discrimination in the provision of goods and services on the basis of race, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, sexual solicitation, and reprisal.

The applicant cited several incidents of poor customer service, including receiving the wrong coffee and not receiving a debit receipt.

The Tribunal found that the incidents involved routine customer service issues and that the respondent had addressed them reasonably.

The Tribunal concluded there was insufficient evidence to prove discrimination, sexual solicitation, or reprisal on a balance of probabilities, and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment after being denied a promotion due to his placement on an attendance management program following a workplace injury.

The applicant had also filed a grievance regarding the same denial, which was scheduled for arbitration.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the conclusion of the grievance proceedings.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding a significant overlap of facts and human rights issues between the two proceedings, and deferred the application in accordance with its rules.

The respondents in a human rights application requested an order permitting them to file documents containing the applicant's health information obtained from the WSIB.

The applicant objected on relevance grounds.

The respondents argued they needed the documents for their defence but were concerned about confidentiality provisions under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act (WSIA).

The Tribunal held that the WSIA provisions do not prohibit an employer from filing documents required for its defence in an administrative proceeding.

The Tribunal found the documents potentially relevant to the accommodation issues raised and granted the request.