HRTO 2009

In an interim decision regarding a human rights complaint alleging racial profiling and assault by police officers, the Tribunal reviewed records of past complaints against the respondent officers to determine if they should be produced.

The Tribunal ordered the production of a 2001 complaint alleging a racially motivated assault at the same police division, finding its probative value outweighed potential prejudice.

A 2007 complaint lacking similarity was withheld.

The Tribunal declined to redact personal identifiers from the produced records but imposed conditions restricting their use to the current proceeding or any subsequent judicial review.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondents.

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

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondents to file a Response by June 22, 2009, along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice to them.

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

The respondent consented to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The complainant requested the Tribunal to reconvene to address the Ministry's alleged failure to comply with previous orders.

The Ministry objected, arguing a lack of particulars and asserting that the complainant must lead evidence first to establish a prima facie case of non-compliance.

The Ministry also questioned the Tribunal's jurisdiction to enforce the orders.

The Tribunal held that it retained supervisory jurisdiction to ensure the implementation of its orders.

It found that sufficient particulars were provided for the initial issues raised.

Given the Ministry's control over the relevant information and the protracted history of the proceedings, the Tribunal exercised its procedural discretion to order the Ministry to present its evidence first.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging his employment was terminated because he was absent from work caring for his terminally ill wife.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the conclusion of a grievance filed by the applicant's union.

The Tribunal declined to defer the application, finding that the grievance was not proceeding in a timely manner and that deferral would cause undue hardship given the applicant's inability to access necessary medications for his wife following the termination of his benefits.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on ethnic origin after being suspended for three years by the University Tribunal for plagiarism.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed due to delay under section 34 of the Human Rights Code and because the substance of the application was appropriately dealt with in another proceeding under section 45.1.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario issued an interim decision scheduling a half-day hearing to hear submissions from the parties on these preliminary issues.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision (2009 HRTO 588) that dismissed his application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant did not identify any of the grounds for reconsideration under Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, but merely stated he did not understand the reasoning and repeated his previous submissions.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, noting that reconsideration is not an opportunity to reargue a case.

The applicant filed an application alleging reprisal and discrimination by the Ontario Human Rights Commission and its investigating officer regarding their handling and dismissal of his previous employment complaint.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that it does not have jurisdiction to review the decisions of another adjudicative body, as the content and result of a statutory decision are not considered a 'service' under the Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a request to expedite his human rights application, alleging that the respondent initiated disciplinary proceedings against him at the Financial Services Commission of Ontario as a reprisal.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the alleged harm did not meet the high threshold of true urgency required to prioritize the matter over other applications.

The Tribunal also directed the applicant to comply with the rule requiring all communications to be copied to the respondent.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in housing on the grounds of association and reprisal.

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

The Tribunal confirmed that the applicant had notice of the hearing and had not updated his address.

Consequently, the application was dismissed for failure to attend.

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

The respondent employer requested early dismissal under s. 45.1 of the Code, arguing an internal complaint process had dealt with the substance of the application, and requested deferral under s. 45.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss, finding that a purely private internal process without formal guarantees of procedural fairness is not a 'proceeding' under s. 45.1.

The request to defer was also dismissed as no other proceedings were pending.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision dismissing her human rights application.

She argued the decision conflicted with established case law and alleged the adjudicator was biased against one of her witnesses.

The Tribunal found no conflict with established jurisprudence, noting the applicant was merely attempting to re-argue her case.

The Tribunal also dismissed the bias allegations as baseless.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing because counsel was unavailable on the proposed dates.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that under its scheduling guidelines, adjournment requests must be made within five days of receiving the Notice of Hearing, and will only be granted in extraordinary circumstances.

As the parties failed to cite any extraordinary circumstances, the hearing was ordered to proceed as scheduled.

The respondents, a paralegal and his business, requested the dismissal of the human rights application against them, noting that the applicant's narrative made no reference to them and they had no involvement in the matters giving rise to the application.

The applicant did not file a reply.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide submissions explaining why these respondents should remain named in the application, failing which they would be removed.

The Tribunal also directed the moving respondents to file full argument on the Tribunal's jurisdiction to award costs if they intended to pursue their costs request.

The respondents failed to file a Response to a human rights application and were deemed to have accepted the allegations.

They subsequently retained counsel and requested permission to participate, explaining that the failure was due to the serious illness and subsequent death of the corporate respondent's principal operating officer.

The applicant did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal accepted the explanation, reversed its previous order, and permitted the respondents to file their Response and participate in the proceedings.

The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and a failure to accommodate.

The applicant also filed a request to expedite the Application, arguing that the failure to accommodate and the stress of the accommodation process may cause deterioration in her quality of life.

The Tribunal dismissed the request to expedite, finding that the circumstances were not truly urgent and that the stress generally caused by alleged human rights violations does not justify prioritizing the Application over others.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment and other areas on multiple grounds.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene.

The Tribunal also issued directions requiring the applicant to provide further particulars regarding her allegations, including the 'record of offences' ground and reasons for delay.

The Tribunal directed the respondent to provide submissions on its requests for early dismissal and deferral pending ongoing union grievances, and scheduled a preliminary hearing to address these issues.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code and requested that the Tribunal defer the proceeding until grievances filed by her union were dealt with under the collective agreement.

The respondents consented to the deferral and the union did not provide submissions.

The Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application pending the conclusion of the grievance procedure.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination with respect to services.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the application pending the outcome of a related proceeding before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision ordering the parties to provide written submissions on whether the application should be deferred.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

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 within 10 days, along with an explanation for the delay, warning that failure to do so could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice pursuant to Rule 5.5.