HRTO 2009

The applicant requested leave to withdraw her human rights application pursuant to Rule 10 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondents consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant filed an application alleging age discrimination in employment.

The respondent requested early dismissal on the basis that the applicant had signed a Full and Final Release following his termination.

The applicant acknowledged signing the release but claimed he did so under duress.

The Tribunal scheduled a one-day hearing to determine as a preliminary matter whether the application should be dismissed based on the release, noting that section 43(2) of the Code requires affording parties a chance to make oral submissions before final disposal.

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

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

The Tribunal subsequently sent a letter requiring the applicant to advise whether she wished to continue the application, warning that failure to respond could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant did not respond.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The respondent requested early dismissal of a human rights application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that a preliminary WSIB decision denying benefits appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding it premature because the WSIB decision was not final and the applicant intended to appeal.

The Tribunal also directed a conference call hearing to address the respondent's allegation that the application was filed late.

The respondents sought to dismiss the human rights application under section 45.1 of the Code, arguing that the substance of the application was dealt with in a prior duty of fair representation complaint at the OLRB.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the OLRB did not consider human rights issues or apply human rights principles.

The Tribunal ordered further submissions on the issue of whether the application should be dismissed for delay under section 34 of the Code.

The applicant Stephanie Weber, with the agreement of the applicant Jennifer Vanston, requested that their two human rights applications concerning the termination of their employment be heard together.

The Tribunal reviewed the applications and found that despite similarities in the circumstances, there was insufficient overlap in the facts and issues to make a joint hearing fair, just, and expeditious.

The request was denied.

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

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

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondent to file a Response by a specified date, along with an explanation for the delay, 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 respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because a key witness would be out of the country.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the respondent had failed to file its witness list as required by Rule 17, making it impossible to assess the importance of the witness's testimony.

Furthermore, the Tribunal noted the respondent's failure to comply with Rules 16.1 and 16.3 regarding document disclosure.

The Tribunal directed the respondent to file all required materials immediately, leaving the determination of admissible evidence to the hearing adjudicator.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that the respondent is a federally regulated business governed by the Canadian Human Rights Act.

The applicant failed to provide submissions establishing provincial jurisdiction.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a request to expedite his human rights application, citing financial pressures including interest charges and the possible loss of his home.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the circumstances did not meet the high threshold for urgency required to prioritize the matter over others.

Additionally, the Tribunal noted a potential jurisdictional issue, as the applicant indicated he did not believe he was discriminated against based on a record of offences under federal or provincial law, despite selecting that ground on his application.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide written submissions explaining how his application falls within its jurisdiction.

The applicant filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code and requested that the proceedings be expedited due to a family emergency and personal issues.

The organization respondent opposed the request, arguing insufficient information and delay in filing.

The Tribunal found the applicant's reasons too vague and lacking in detail to justify expediting the proceedings over other matters.

The request to expedite was dismissed, and the style of cause was amended to correct the individual respondent's name.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision dismissing his application, arguing that the respondents were permitted to file irrelevant documentary evidence that was not disclosed in a timely manner.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the document in question was not admitted into evidence, marked as an exhibit, or relied upon by the Tribunal.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant filed an unopposed Request for Order During Proceedings to add the Toronto Police Services Board and William Blair, Chief of Police, as respondents.

The Tribunal found the request appropriate and granted the order, directing the newly added respondents to file their Response within 35 days.

The applicant filed an application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code alleging discrimination by the respondents in the provision of police services.

The institutional respondent failed to file a Response within the required timeframe.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the institutional respondent to file a Response by August 10, 2009, along with an explanation for the delay, warning that failure to comply could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the applicant's human rights application alleging sex discrimination and termination during maternity leave.

The respondent argued deferral was appropriate because the applicant had threatened a civil action for wrongful dismissal.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that since no civil proceeding had actually been commenced, there was no other legal proceeding to which the Tribunal could defer.

The applicant filed an application alleging that the respondents' decision to offer student bus passes only to those under the age of 27 is discriminatory based on age.

The applicant requested that the application be expedited due to the financial impact on older students.

The Tribunal denied the request to expedite, finding that the financial pressures described did not meet the high threshold for urgency required to prioritize the matter over others.

Additionally, the Tribunal noted a potential jurisdictional issue, as OC Transpo has previously been found to be a federally-regulated business, and directed the parties to provide submissions on whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of record of offences, claiming she was harassed and terminated after a manager overheard her complaining about a coworker's dismissal.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the narrative did not allege facts related to a 'record of offences' as defined in the Code.

The applicant failed to file written submissions in response.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction to inquire into general claims of unfairness not tied to a prohibited ground of discrimination.

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

The Tribunal issued two interim decisions directing the applicant to provide submissions on whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the application, warning that failure to respond would result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant did not respond.

The application was dismissed as abandoned.

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

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation and subsequently failed to respond to a Tribunal letter inquiring about her intentions with respect to the application.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed an Application alleging Contravention of Settlement.

The respondents failed to file a Response within the required 14-day period.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision giving the respondents 10 days to file a Response and an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice to them.