HRTO 2009

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race regarding his termination as a security tenant following an altercation.

The application was filed over four years after the employment relationship ended.

The Tribunal held a teleconference to address the preliminary issue of delay.

The Tribunal found that the delay was not incurred in good faith, as the applicant provided no reasonable explanation for failing to pursue his rights under the Code in a timely manner, despite being active in other litigation.

The application was dismissed under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in services based on comments allegedly made by a police sergeant and a translator during an interview with another individual.

The translator respondent submitted she was acting pro bono at the other individual's request and was not providing services within the meaning of the Code.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the parties to provide written submissions on whether the allegations against the translator fall within the Tribunal's jurisdiction over services under section 1 of the Code.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to employment and contracts after the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board reduced his loss of earning benefits.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that adjudicative decisions of statutory tribunals are not a 'service' under the Code and the HRTO does not have the authority to hear appeals from the decisions of other statutory tribunals.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of the Tribunal's decision dismissing his application.

The Tribunal denied the request because the applicant's submissions failed to address any of the required factors for reconsideration set out in Rule 25.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination on the basis of race, gender, and ethnic origin.

The applicant also had an ongoing union grievance proceeding based on substantially the same facts.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer.

After initially opposing, the applicant consented to the deferral.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the Hamilton Police Service in the provision of services, citing 'receipt of public assistance' as the sole ground.

The respondent noted that this ground applies only to housing under the Human Rights Code, not to services.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the applicant to provide written submissions explaining how the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the application, failing which the application may be dismissed.

Following an interim decision, the applicant advised the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario that she did not wish to proceed with her application.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability regarding her layoff while on medical leave and her subsequent reinstatement at a lower wage rate following a grievance arbitration award.

The respondent requested early dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance of the application was dealt with in the arbitration.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the 2005 layoff was fully canvassed in the arbitration and the challenge to the 2006 reinstatement rate was essentially an impermissible collateral attack on the arbitrator's decision-making, which is not a 'service' under the Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that the condominium corporation's declaration, which restricts units to single-family residences, discriminates against her tenants based on age, family status, and marital status.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the completion of arbitration proceedings under the Condominium Act.

The Tribunal declined to defer the application, finding it unclear whether an arbitrator appointed under the Condominium Act has the authority to consider and apply the Human Rights Code to resolve the dispute.

The applicant filed an application alleging reprisal under section 8 of the Human Rights Code, claiming he was blacklisted and not rehired after complaining about workplace harassment.

The respondent requested early dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to link his harassment complaints to any prohibited ground of discrimination under the Code.

As a claim for reprisal cannot stand on its own without an attempt to claim or enforce a right under the Code, the Tribunal concluded it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the application.

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

The respondent argued the application was outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction under s. 53(8) of the Human Rights Code.

In a previous interim decision, the Tribunal ordered the applicant to file submissions on jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to do so.

The Tribunal ordered that the application shall be dismissed as abandoned unless the applicant files the required submissions within five business days.

The applicant filed a human rights application while a grievance based on substantially the same facts and issues was ongoing.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer.

The respondents made submissions, but the applicant did not.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the resolution of the grievance proceeding, noting that the grievance had been referred to arbitration.

The applicant requested reconsideration of an interim decision that deferred his human rights application pending the outcome of his union grievance.

He argued that the grievance process was unacceptably delayed and might settle without addressing systemic issues.

The Tribunal found that reconsideration is not available for interim decisions.

Treating the request as one to proceed with a deferred application under Rule 14.5, the Tribunal declined to exercise its discretion, noting the applicant had not initially requested an expedited hearing and could return to the Tribunal if the grievance process failed to address his public interest remedies.

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

The respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the resolution of a union grievance concerning the same allegations.

The applicant opposed the deferral, arguing the grievance would not proceed in the foreseeable future.

The Tribunal directed the respondent and the union to provide further written submissions on the issue of deferral before making a determination.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and failure to accommodate by his employer.

The employer sought to defer the application pending the outcome of concurrent grievance arbitration proceedings.

The union, which had carriage of the grievances, indicated it would not advance the human rights claims at arbitration.

The Tribunal declined to defer the application, finding that because the human rights issues would not be adjudicated in the grievance process, deferral was not appropriate.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in educational services because of reprisal, claiming he was accused of inappropriate touching and asked to use a separate washroom.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application did not allege a protected ground or area of discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant failed to provide written submissions explaining how the application fell within the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no facts to support a claim of reprisal or any other Code violation.

The applicant filed an application alleging reprisal in employment but failed to identify a ground of discrimination or explain how the alleged mistreatment related to a Code ground.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, to which the applicant did not respond.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as it lacked sufficient information regarding the ground or basis of the alleged Code violation.

The applicant filed an application alleging reprisal in employment against his former employer and supervisors.

The Tribunal initially issued a notice of intent to dismiss, noting the narrative did not clearly identify a Code-based reprisal.

After reviewing the applicant's submissions, the Tribunal found the application also raised concerns regarding differential treatment based on place of origin and inappropriate questioning of illness-related absences.

The Tribunal concluded the application may raise matters within its jurisdiction and directed that it be served on the respondents.

The applicant, a child, requested to amend his human rights application to add his mother as a party and family status as a ground, and to consolidate his application with his mother's newly filed application.

The Tribunal denied these requests, finding they would prejudice the respondents and delay the imminent hearing.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to use initials to protect his identity.

The parties' joint request for an adjournment was denied.

The respondents' request to add a late witness was denied due to prejudice to the applicant, while their request to add a document was deferred to the hearing.

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

In its response, the respondent requested early dismissal on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release.

After the applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's notice regarding the request for early dismissal, the Tribunal issued an interim decision ordering the applicant to provide written submissions indicating whether she intends to pursue the application and why the release does not bar it, failing which the application may be dismissed as abandoned.