HRTO 2009

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on sex and disability against a women's shelter and its executive director.

The applicant claimed the respondents assisted the mother of his child in abducting his son and perjured themselves in court.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision questioning its jurisdiction, noting it is unclear whether a women's shelter provides services to the father of a resident's child within the meaning of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant was directed to file submissions explaining how his application raises allegations of discrimination with respect to services.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, specifically a failure to accommodate.

The respondent requested a deferral under Rule 14.1, arguing that an ongoing union grievance was based on the same facts and issues.

The applicant denied the grievance was ongoing, asserting a settlement had been reached.

The Tribunal directed the parties and the union to provide further information and submissions regarding the status of the grievance and any settlement agreement before determining the deferral request.

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

The respondents filed a Request for an Order seeking to dismiss the application on the basis that it did not identify how the respondents breached the Human Rights Code or subjected the applicant to reprisal.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant did not allege that the respondents' behaviour was in response to claiming a right under the Code, participating in proceedings, or refusing to infringe a right.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide written submissions explaining how the application raises matters within the Tribunal's jurisdiction before deciding whether to dismiss the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the ground of sexual orientation following his termination.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the completion of an ongoing union grievance process based on the same facts.

With the applicant's consent, the Tribunal deferred the application, noting that grievance arbitrators have the responsibility to enforce human rights obligations.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code alleging discrimination.

The respondents requested to reschedule the hearing because a named respondent and witnesses had previously scheduled vacations.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the respondents' proposed alternate dates fell outside the Tribunal's 22-week standard without extraordinary circumstances.

The Tribunal found no evidence of financial penalty or harm to the respondents if the hearing proceeded, whereas the applicant, who was awaiting social assistance income, would be prejudiced by further delay.

The corporate respondent requested an order requiring the Peel Regional Police to produce original digital versions of photographs showing the complainant's alleged injuries.

The complainant opposed the request, arguing the copies already provided were adequate.

The Tribunal found the digital photographs were arguably relevant to the dispute over whether the complainant's wounds were caused by biting during the alleged assault.

The Tribunal ordered the production of the digital photographs at the corporate respondent's expense.

The Tribunal also granted the Ontario Human Rights Commission's request to withdraw from the proceeding without conditions.

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

The respondent requested that the Tribunal instead dismiss the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal granted the applicant leave to withdraw the application.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of family status, claiming the respondents failed to accommodate his childcare responsibilities and forced him to resign.

The applicant had taken on an extra shift that conflicted with his every-other-weekend childcare access.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to clearly communicate his need for accommodation and that his regular schedule did not interfere with his childcare responsibilities.

The Tribunal also found that the applicant resigned due to personal pressure rather than an ultimatum from the employer.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code but failed to attend the scheduled Case Resolution Conference.

Prior to the hearing, the applicant requested an adjournment due to a training conflict, which the Tribunal denied as it did not constitute exceptional circumstances.

Despite being notified of the denial, the applicant did not appear.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, holding that it is the applicant's responsibility to attend and provide evidence in support of their allegations.

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

The Tribunal previously deemed the respondent to have accepted all facts and waived its right to participate due to its failure to file a response.

The respondent subsequently retained counsel and sought to participate, citing the principal's absence from the country.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondent to file a complete response and submissions explaining its failure to file earlier, holding the applicant's requirement to file additional materials in abeyance pending determination of the respondent's right to participate.

The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination on the basis of race and colour.

One of the personal respondents failed to file a response within the required timeframe.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the non-responding party to file a response by a specified date, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice.

The Tribunal also granted a request by the applicant's union to intervene in the proceeding, leaving the extent of the union's participation to be determined by the presiding adjudicator at the hearing.

The respondents brought a request to dismiss the applicant's reprisal claim on the basis that his underlying discrimination claim regarding record of offences had been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant had a sincere and not unreasonable belief that he was covered by the Human Rights Code when he instituted proceedings, and therefore the protection against reprisals under section 8 applied.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability following a work-related injury.

The Tribunal Registrar issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant was pursuing an appeal at the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) regarding whether he refused to accept suitable work.

The Tribunal found that the WSIAT decision would deal with matters highly relevant to the human rights application and ordered the application deferred pending the conclusion of the WSIAT appeal.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and age against United Parcel Service.

The respondent submitted that it is a federally regulated undertaking subject to the Canadian Human Rights Act, not the Ontario Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the respondent is a courier company whose core business involves interprovincial and international transportation, placing it under federal jurisdiction.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the ground of disability and reprisal, along with a request for an interim remedy to stop alleged harassment and intimidation.

The Tribunal previously informed the applicant that her request was incomplete because it lacked signed declarations from persons with first-hand knowledge, as required by the Tribunal's Rules.

The applicant resubmitted the request with letters from her psychiatrist instead of declarations.

The Tribunal denied the request for an interim remedy, finding that the letters did not provide sufficient first-hand evidence of the interactions between the parties to justify the extraordinary step of ordering an interim remedy.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of perceived disability regarding his termination.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the outcome of a concurrent union grievance challenging the termination.

The Tribunal found that the facts and issues raised were part of an ongoing grievance process and noted that grievance arbitrators have the jurisdiction to enforce human rights obligations.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance proceeding.

The applicant, an elementary school teacher, filed an Application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisals by the respondent school board.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order to amend the Application to add further details and make editorial changes.

The respondent did not respond to the Request.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, noting the early stage of the proceeding, the nature of the amendments, and the absence of apparent prejudice.

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

Following an arbitration process that resulted in Minutes of Settlement, the applicant requested to expedite the Tribunal proceedings and to quash a paragraph in the settlement requiring him to withdraw his human rights application.

The Tribunal removed one personal respondent on consent, denied the request to expedite, found the deferral issue moot, and scheduled a conference call hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed based on the signed Minutes of Settlement.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability by the respondent university, relating to a 1991 investigation and hospital detention.

The respondent requested dismissal on the grounds of delay, lack of jurisdiction, and that another proceeding had already dealt with the matter.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing that a preliminary hearing be scheduled by telephone conference to address the limitation period, the application of section 45.1, and whether the allegations fall within an area of discrimination under the Code.

The applicant Selwyn Pieters requested an adjournment of the June 8, 2009 hearing date.

The co-applicant consented, but the respondents opposed.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment because no Confirmation of Hearing had been issued for Pieters' application, and a recent Notice of Joint Mediation indicated that hearing dates would be set if mediation was unsuccessful.