HRTO 2009

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

The hearing was scheduled for July 20, 2009.

The applicant filed a Request for Order during Proceeding seeking to add respondents, amend the Statement of Facts, and obtain document production.

Subsequently, counsel for the corporate respondent requested an adjournment of the hearing due to unavailability, without providing reasons.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request as it was made outside the five-day period without exceptional circumstances, but converted the scheduled hearing into a case management conference to address the applicant's Request.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order to amend her human rights application to add further information regarding how the alleged discrimination affected her.

The respondents did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal granted the amendment, noting the early stage of the proceeding, the nature of the amendments, and the absence of any apparent prejudice.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex, claiming she was terminated while pregnant.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed as an abuse of process, arguing the applicant had signed a full and final release upon termination.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision scheduling a conference call to hear oral submissions on the preliminary issue of the release, as required by section 43(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination on the basis of disability and requested that the Tribunal expedite the application due to potential physical and psychological harm upon returning to work, as well as financial hardship.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the alleged harm did not constitute truly urgent circumstances that would warrant giving the application priority over other matters.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Case Resolution Conference Decision that dismissed her human rights application against the University of Toronto.

She argued that she was previously unrepresented and unprepared, but now possessed a better understanding of human rights law.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, holding that reconsideration is not an appeal or an opportunity to repair deficiencies in the presentation of a case, and the applicant failed to meet the criteria under Rule 25.5.

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

He submitted further evidence claiming it supported his contention that the respondents' request for him to leave the House of Friendship was contrary to the law.

The Tribunal found that the new evidence could have reasonably been obtained prior to the Case Resolution Conference and was therefore inadmissible.

Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that even if admitted, the evidence would not have changed the result.

The applicant's central submission was a disagreement with the Tribunal's findings of fact, which did not meet the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 25.5.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

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

The respondent consented to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

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

The respondent requested dismissal under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter was already resolved through a union grievance process that resulted in signed Minutes of Settlement.

The Tribunal found that the grievance dealt with the same issues, the applicant was represented by his union, and the settlement included a release covering the respondent.

The Tribunal granted the request and dismissed the application to avoid duplication of proceedings.

The respondent Patrice Barry filed a Request for an Order during Proceedings seeking to be removed as a respondent to the human rights complaint.

As the other parties consented to the request, the Tribunal ordered that Patrice Barry be removed as a respondent and amended the style of cause accordingly.

The applicant, a shift supervisor, alleged discrimination on the basis of ethnic origin and/or colour when his employer reduced his final payout for banked public holidays upon his resignation.

The employer maintained the reduction corrected a long-standing administrative error in calculating premium pay, which also affected other supervisors.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no evidence of differential treatment based on Code grounds, concluding the issue arose solely from clerical errors by management.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw his human rights application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, pursuant to Rule 10 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondent made no submissions.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw his human rights application.

The respondent consented to the withdrawal but objected to it being on a without prejudice basis.

The Tribunal granted leave to withdraw the application.

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

The respondent made no submissions on the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant, who has ADHD, panic and anxiety disorders, and an eating disorder, alleged discrimination and failure to accommodate by the respondent health centre and its staff after he was discharged from a group-based eating disorder program.

The Tribunal found no evidence that the applicant's difficulties in the program or his discharge were related to his disabilities.

The Tribunal concluded that the respondents took appropriate steps to accommodate the applicant within the parameters of their group-based program, and dismissed the application.

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

The applicant's union, the United Food and Commercial Workers Canada, requested to intervene to ensure that any remedy would not adversely impact the interpretation or application of the collective agreement.

As neither party opposed the request, the Tribunal granted the union intervenor status.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment against her former employer and the arbitrator who upheld her termination.

The arbitrator requested the application be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, citing judicial immunity.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide submissions explaining how the Tribunal has jurisdiction to review the content and reasoning of a statutory decision-maker's decision.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment, including failure to hire and sexual harassment.

The corporate respondent requested the removal of its District Manager as a personal respondent.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the manager's actions were within the normal course of employment and the corporate respondent accepted liability for his actions.

The Tribunal also issued procedural directions requiring the applicant to provide particulars for certain allegations and setting the order of proceedings for the upcoming hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination.

One of the personal respondents, a retired union president, did not file a Response because the application was sent to the union's address.

The Tribunal directed the union to provide the retired president's contact information and decided to proceed with scheduling mediation without waiting for his Response, as all other parties had agreed to mediate.

The respondents requested the removal of the personal respondents from two applications filed under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal deferred the request, noting that section 53(3) applications are designed to be dealt with expeditiously and preliminary motions are discouraged.

The request will be addressed at the outset of the scheduled Case Resolution Conference.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination and reprisal by the Social Benefits Tribunal in the rendering of a decision.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss to determine if it had jurisdiction over the matter.

The Tribunal held that the content, reasons, and result of a statutory tribunal's decision do not constitute a 'service' under section 1 of the Human Rights Code.

Consequently, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to review or vary the order of another statutory tribunal, and the application was dismissed.