HRTO 2009

The applicant filed an application under s. 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 directing the respondent to file a response by July 23, 2009, along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice and deem the respondent to have accepted the allegations.

The applicants requested reconsideration of two interim decisions (2009 HRTO 561 and 2009 HRTO 702) in which the Tribunal found that their human rights complaints were not continued against several respondents.

The Tribunal dismissed the requests, finding that the applicants merely attempted to re-argue the issues and did not meet any of the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 25.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

In a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex or sexual orientation regarding admission to a women's only fitness facility, the respondents sought production of various documents and particulars.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant, a pre-operative transsexual at the time of the incident, to produce medical records relating to her transsexual surgery and treating physician.

The Tribunal dismissed the respondents' requests for documents relating to the bona fides of the applicant's membership application, counselling notes, restraining orders, and further particulars, finding them not arguably relevant to the issues of liability or necessary for a fair hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging failure to accommodate his disability.

The respondent requested early dismissal, arguing the application was an abuse of process because the applicant was concurrently pursuing a grievance seeking severance pay based on frustration of contract.

Alternatively, the respondent sought deferral pending the grievance.

The Tribunal denied the request for early dismissal, finding insufficient basis at the preliminary stage to conclude it was an abuse of process.

The Tribunal also denied deferral, noting that the grievance arbitration had been adjourned sine die and was unlikely to proceed concurrently.

The matter was directed to mediation.

The applicant requested permission to audiotape the upcoming Case Resolution Conference hearing as an aide-memoire.

The respondents opposed the request, arguing it would cause delay, formality, and potential discomfort for witnesses.

The Tribunal found that audiotaping is akin to taking notes and that concerns about misuse could be addressed through conditions.

The Tribunal granted the request, allowing either party to audiotape the hearing subject to strict conditions regarding the use and dissemination of the recordings.

The complainant, a Black man originally from Jamaica, alleged that he was subjected to racial harassment and discriminatory work assignments and termination by his foreman while employed as a general labourer at a construction site.

The Tribunal found the complainant's evidence unreliable and preferred the consistent and corroborated evidence of the respondents.

The Tribunal concluded that no discriminatory comments were made and that the complainant's work assignments and subsequent layoff were due to his poor work performance and an incident where he damaged expensive equipment.

The complaint was dismissed.

Le requérant a déposé une requête alléguant du harcèlement au travail fondé sur l'orientation sexuelle et des représailles.

Dans cette décision provisoire, le Tribunal a examiné plusieurs demandes préliminaires des deux parties.

Le Tribunal a rejeté la demande de traitement expéditif, la demande d'enquête du Tribunal, la demande de provision pour frais, ainsi que diverses demandes de mesures de réparation provisoires du requérant.

Le Tribunal a également rejeté la demande de l'intimé visant à reporter ou suspendre l'instance.

The Chief of Police and respondent officers sought to vary a previous Tribunal order requiring the production of documents related to previous race-based complaints against the officers, proposing to redact complainant identities.

They also sought a stay of proceedings pending judicial review.

The Tribunal declined to vary the order, finding the proposed redaction and contact method inappropriate and unnecessary.

The Tribunal also denied the stay, finding no exceptional circumstances and that the balance of convenience did not favour a stay, as delaying production would prejudice the complainant and the Commission.

The applicant rescheduled mediation twice and subsequently failed to provide new dates.

The Registrar directed the applicant to advise whether he wished to proceed, warning that failure to do so would result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant did not respond, and the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The respondent requested an adjournment of a scheduled Case Resolution Conference due to counsel's scheduling conflict and an outstanding request for production of documents.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the hearing date was set on consent, scheduling conflicts do not constitute exceptional circumstances, and the production request had already been ruled upon.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application on the basis that his disabilities were reasonably accommodated.

The applicant argued there were new facts or evidence and mistakes of fact in the original decision.

The Tribunal found that the alleged new evidence was previously denied production because it was irrelevant, and the alleged mistakes of fact were either immaterial or simply findings of fact with which the applicant disagreed.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Tribunal Order that disposed of her human rights application in accordance with signed minutes of settlement.

She argued that she signed the settlement under duress, alleging her former counsel pressured her and that her judgment was clouded by medication.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding the applicant provided no medical evidence to support her claim of clouded judgment and failed to establish duress, particularly given she was represented by counsel at the time.

The applicant, alleging he was the same-sex common-law partner of a deceased tenant, filed a human rights application against the housing provider and the deceased's mother.

He brought several interim requests for orders, including adding the City of Ottawa, a funeral home, and a cemetery as respondents, sealing a safety deposit box, and ordering an inquiry into the deceased's finances.

The Tribunal dismissed all interim requests, finding they related to estate distribution and burial arrangements outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal also directed the applicant to provide submissions on why his claim against the deceased's mother falls within its jurisdiction.

The applicant, who is visually impaired and uses a guide dog, alleged discrimination when she was denied entry to the corporate respondent's restaurant.

The respondents did not attend the hearing.

The Tribunal accepted the applicant's evidence that the personal respondent refused entry to her guide dog, citing health department rules.

The Tribunal found this constituted discrimination on the basis of disability and awarded $2,000 in monetary compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, along with public interest remedies.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code while a concurrent union grievance proceeding based on the same facts was ongoing.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred pending the completion of the grievance process.

The Tribunal noted its normal approach is to defer to concurrent proceedings where there is substantial overlap in facts and human rights issues, as grievance arbitrators have the authority to enforce human rights obligations.

Finding no reason to depart from this approach, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance process.

The applicants, who were minors at the time of the events, sought an interim order to consolidate their applications, remove their litigation guardians, and obtain a confidentiality order under Rule 5.11.

The Tribunal granted the requests, noting that the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the Education Act demonstrate a legislative intention to protect the privacy of young persons in conflict with the criminal justice system.

The Tribunal ordered that the applicants and witnesses be referred to by their initials.

The applicant filed a human rights application naming the Toronto Police Service, specific officers by badge number, and the Toronto Ambulance Service.

The Toronto Police Service failed to file a response, while responses were filed on behalf of the individual officers and the City of Toronto.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the parties to make submissions on amending the respondents' names to include the Toronto Police Services Board and the City of Toronto.

The Tribunal also ordered the respondents to disclose the first names of the officers and the names of the paramedics involved so they could be properly identified or added as personal respondents.

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

The application named the landlord's paralegal and his business as respondents.

The paralegal requested to be removed as a respondent.

The Tribunal found that a paralegal representing a landlord in eviction proceedings is not providing accommodation to the tenant and therefore their actions do not fall under section 2 of the Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed as against the paralegal and his business.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability after the respondent refused to permit her to act as a stem cell donor.

The respondent filed a request for an order during proceedings, arguing that the regulation of blood products falls under exclusive federal jurisdiction and asking that the application be dismissed.

The Tribunal agreed with the respondent that the jurisdictional issue should be determined prior to addressing the applicant's requests to expedite and for an interim remedy.

The Tribunal directed that a one-day in-person hearing be scheduled to determine whether the allegations fall under provincial jurisdiction, and ordered that notice be given to the Ontario Human Rights Commission and the Attorneys General of Ontario and Canada.

The applicant filed an application alleging reprisal.

In an earlier interim decision, the Tribunal noted that the allegations did not appear to be linked to an attempt to claim or enforce Code-based rights and sought submissions on jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to file any submissions.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, as the application contained no allegations relating to the ground of reprisal.