HRTO 2009

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment based on disability, ancestry, and reprisal, approximately two years and three months after the last alleged incident.

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

The applicant submitted that the delay was incurred in good faith because he believed his union was pursuing the issue through a grievance and because his disability made completing the application stressful.

The Tribunal deferred its decision on whether the delay was incurred in good faith under section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code, directing that the application be delivered to the respondent for submissions on the delay issue before making a final determination.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in goods, services, and facilities on the basis of sexual orientation.

A hearing was scheduled, but the applicant failed to attend.

The respondent requested an abbreviated hearing on the merits, which the adjudicator declined.

Satisfied that the applicant had notice of the hearing, the adjudicator dismissed the application due to the applicant's non-attendance.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination regarding his ineligibility for non-pension benefits after his employment was terminated.

The respondent requested early dismissal, arguing the applicant had signed a full and final release over seven years prior and that the application was out of time.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision scheduling a half-day hearing to hear oral submissions on whether the application should be dismissed based on the release, failure to disclose a prima facie case, or untimeliness.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination by the WSIB and a claims adjudicator regarding his participation in a labour market re-entry program.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the application pending the conclusion of concurrent proceedings before the WSIB's Appeals Branch and the WSIAT.

The Tribunal found that deferral was the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed, as the applicant was raising the same facts and issues in both forums.

The application was deferred pending the conclusion of the workplace safety and insurance proceedings.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing pending a reconsideration determination in a separate application involving the same applicant but different respondents.

The respondents objected to the adjournment.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the outcome of the reconsideration would not affect the fairness of the hearing in this application, as the fair and expeditious determination of this matter was not dependent on the other application.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in housing on the basis of race.

One of the respondents failed to file a response within the required timeframe.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondent to file a response by a specified date, warning that failure to do so could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming the respondent to have accepted the allegations.

The applicants filed applications with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario under the transitional provisions of the Human Rights Code.

The respondents objected, arguing the underlying complaints had not been properly filed with the Commission.

The Commission confirmed it had received the complaint forms but closed its file without formally filing or serving them, advising the applicants to file directly with the Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that because the complaints were not 'filed' or 'continued' at the Commission, it lacked jurisdiction under the transitional provisions and dismissed the applications.

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

The Tribunal previously granted intervener status to the applicant's union and requested submissions on whether the application should be deferred pending the outcome of an ongoing grievance arbitration based on the same facts.

With the agreement of all parties, the Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application pending the conclusion of the arbitration.

The applicant filed a human rights application.

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 file a Response by a specified final deadline could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice to them and deeming them to have accepted the allegations.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal in the provision of services, specifically citing abusive calls from a collection agency.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application did not allege a ground of discrimination or that the respondent's behaviour was in response to claiming a right under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant failed to provide submissions in response to the Notice.

The Tribunal dismissed the application pursuant to Rule 13.1, finding it lacked jurisdiction to deal with general allegations of poor service not tied to the Code.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw her application filed under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondent consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant filed a request to proceed under Rule 14.3 after the Tribunal had previously deferred the application pending the conclusion of a Landlord and Tenant Board proceeding.

The LTB proceeding concluded through withdrawal.

The respondent made no substantive submissions.

The Tribunal granted the request to proceed and directed the Registrar to schedule the application for a hearing.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the applicant's WSIB claims adjudication process appropriately dealt with the substance of the complaint.

The applicant, a volunteer firefighter who suffered a back injury, alleged that the respondent failed to accommodate him and inappropriately relied on a WSIB decision to prohibit him from performing his duties.

The Tribunal dismissed the respondent's request, finding that the WSIB claims adjudicator's decision did not appropriately deal with the substantive issues relating to the accommodation of the applicant.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex, claiming the respondent refused to reinstate her following a pregnancy leave.

The respondent, an independent broker with CIBC Wood Gundy, claimed CIBC was the applicant's employer.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing that notice of the proceeding be given to CIBC, as it may be affected by the outcome and any potential remedy, and provided CIBC an opportunity to request to intervene.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of an interim decision that dismissed his human rights application against his union.

The applicant argued that the union's refusal to represent him after he became disabled, having represented him prior to his disability, was evidence of discrimination.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the applicant was attempting to re-argue his case without providing new evidence, which does not meet the criteria for reconsideration under the Tribunal's rules.

The respondent employer requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the applicant's human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability.

The applicant's trade union had filed a grievance raising the same facts and issues, specifically the failure to accommodate the applicant by allowing him to work from home.

The Tribunal found that deferral was appropriate to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions, noting that the applicant could seek to reactivate the application if the grievance process did not resolve the matter.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sex discrimination and reprisal against her former employer and numerous other respondents, including the labour arbitrator who upheld her termination.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal directed the applicant to provide submissions on three issues: whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction over the adjudicative decisions of a labour arbitrator, whether all named respondents are properly parties to the application, and whether her alleged illness constitutes a 'disability' within the meaning of the Code.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission filed a Request for an Order during Proceedings seeking to withdraw from the proceeding without conditions.

As there were no responses from the other parties and no apparent transitional issues, the Tribunal granted the request, allowing the Commission to withdraw without conditions while continuing to receive notice of the proceedings.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to consolidate his application with a previously dismissed application, to compel the Chancellor of the University to be interviewed as a witness, and to order the production of documents.

The Tribunal dismissed the request to consolidate, noting it had no jurisdiction to alter a final decision.

The Tribunal also dismissed the requests for a witness summons and document production as premature, directing the applicant to follow the standard procedures for summonses and disclosure under the Tribunal's rules.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw their human rights application filed under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondent consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.