HRTO 2009

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

After retaining counsel, the applicant sought to amend the application to add grounds of race, place of origin, and creed, and to include new allegations of discriminatory remarks by coworkers.

The respondents opposed the amendment, arguing it lacked particulars and was prejudicial.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, noting that the respondents' evidentiary concerns could be addressed at or before the hearing, and allowed the respondents 20 days to file an amended response.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment.

After the respondent failed to file a Response, the Tribunal deemed the respondent to have accepted the allegations and waived its right to participate.

The respondent subsequently requested to participate, explaining that its former representative had experienced a family crisis and failed to file the Response.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the parties to file written submissions on whether the respondent should be permitted to participate, which would be addressed at an upcoming teleconference.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal in employment after transferring her complaint from the Commission.

She also commenced a civil action claiming constructive dismissal and discrimination based on the same factual circumstances, but deliberately omitted the reprisal claim from the civil action.

The Tribunal held that section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code bars an application where a civil proceeding has been commenced seeking remedies for an alleged infringement of the Code arising out of the same factual context.

The application was dismissed to prevent duplicate proceedings.

The applicant, a cashier, alleged discrimination on the basis of family status after her employer changed her long-standing work schedule, which she required to care for her grandchild with special needs.

She sought an interim remedy to maintain her Monday to Thursday, 9 AM to 5 PM schedule pending the outcome of her human rights application.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had an arguable case, the balance of convenience favoured her, and it was just and appropriate to grant the interim remedy.

The respondent was ordered to maintain her former work schedule and full-time status.

The applicant filed a human rights application against her employer and several individuals.

The corporate respondent filed for bankruptcy protection and argued the application was stayed under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The applicant requested to amend her application to withdraw all monetary claims against the corporate respondent.

The Tribunal granted the amendment and held that because the applicant was no longer seeking monetary remedies, she was not a creditor with a claim provable in bankruptcy, and therefore the proceedings were not stayed.

The Tribunal also addressed requests to withdraw against two individual respondents, a request to expedite, and a request for document production.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding requested orders for the early production of documents, a written hearing, and permission to amend her application to add additional remedies.

The Tribunal denied the request for early production of documents, finding no exceptional circumstances to deviate from the normal disclosure rules.

The Tribunal also denied the request for a written hearing, noting the respondent's objection and the need to assess credibility on disputed facts.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend the application to add additional remedies, finding no prejudice to the respondent.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission filed a Request for an Order during Proceedings seeking to withdraw from the proceeding without conditions.

As the request was served on all parties with no response, and no transitional directions were required, the Tribunal allowed the Commission's request to withdraw from active participation.

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

Prior to a preliminary hearing on timeliness and whether the substance of the application was dealt with in other proceedings, the applicant requested an order for the production of attendance records and notes from an OLRB mediator and private arbitrator.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the notes were not in the respondents' possession, were privileged under the Labour Relations Act, and that the attendance records were not relevant to the preliminary issues.

The applicant, a student in a dental assistant program, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability when the respondents failed to accommodate her physical restrictions during a required practicum.

The applicant requested shorter shifts due to injuries from a motor vehicle accident, but the respondents did not adequately investigate or explore accommodation options, leading to her failing the practicum and receiving an incomplete.

The Tribunal found that the respondents failed in their procedural duty to accommodate the applicant's disability to the point of undue hardship.

The respondents were ordered to pay $3,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code regarding her employment.

One of the named respondents, a sole proprietor, filed a response stating he had no connection to the case and never employed the applicant.

The applicant's reply did not address this assertion.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to either withdraw the application against this respondent or provide submissions explaining why he should remain a party to the proceeding.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination by the Law Society of Upper Canada and its employees based on family status and receipt of public assistance.

The complaint arose from the Law Society's handling of her complaint against a real estate lawyer and the denial of her claim against the Lawyers Fund for Client Compensation.

The Tribunal dismissed the application at a Case Resolution Conference, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to review the Law Society's discretionary decisions regarding the Compensation Fund and the complaints process.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, as there was no evidence that the Law Society's actions were affected by her family status.

In an ongoing human rights application, the Tribunal previously added Claybrooke Marketing Inc. as a respondent and directed it to file a response.

After no response was received, the Tribunal issued this interim decision warning the respondent of the consequences of failing to participate under Rule 5.5.

The respondent's representative was directed to file a response by June 23, 2009, and to provide a copy of the decision to the trustee in bankruptcy.

The Tribunal also deferred Claybrooke Inc.'s informal request to be removed as a respondent to the hearing on the merits.

The applicant filed an application alleging contravention of a settlement reached at the Ontario Human Rights Commission under the old Part IV of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction to enforce the settlement under s. 45.9 because the settlement had not been approved by the Commission.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant's transitional application under s. 53(3), finding that the voluntary settlement and release signed by the parties meant the complaint was no longer 'continued' within the meaning of the transition provisions.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend the respondents in her human rights application.

On consent, the Tribunal ordered that Falls Management Group, L.P. be added as a respondent and Complex Services Inc. be removed.

The applicant's request to add the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation was deferred because the proposed respondent had not been served with the request.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging she was terminated from her employment due to pregnancy.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal dismiss or defer the application because the applicant had also filed an Employment Standards Act complaint on the same grounds.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application under s. 45.1 of the Code because the Ontario Labour Relations Board had not yet heard the ESA review.

However, the Tribunal deferred the application under s. 45 of the Code pending the conclusion of the OLRB proceeding.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondents.

The Tribunal previously found that the application was stayed by a Superior Court receivership order and directed the applicant to seek leave from the Superior Court to lift the stay or reach an agreement with the Receiver.

The applicant failed to provide documentation showing he had commenced a motion in the Superior Court by the specified deadline.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The respondents requested that the applicant's human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal be deferred pending the resolution of the applicant's WSIB appeal regarding a work-related arm injury.

The Tribunal declined to defer the application, finding that the human rights issues, which included allegations of discrimination based on a stress-related disability and reprisal, went beyond the scope of the WSIB appeal.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, and creed arising from his arrest by the respondent police service.

The parties consented to mediation.

The Tribunal addressed several interim requests filed by the applicant.

The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's request for interim compensation as unjustified prior to a liability finding.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant's requests for document production and witness lists as premature under the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The matter was scheduled for mediation.

The respondent requested a stay of the Tribunal proceeding pending the determination of an application for judicial review of an earlier interim decision.

The Tribunal applied the three-part test for a stay and found that the respondent failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured a stay.

The Commission also requested to add the Chief of Police as an additional respondent, which the Tribunal denied because the Chief of Police is an individual and not an entity subject to deemed liability under section 46.3(1) of the Code.

Both requests were dismissed.

The applicant, a student with learning disabilities, alleged the school board discriminated against him by failing to provide appropriate special education programs and by suspending him without accommodating his disability.

The respondents brought preliminary motions to remove personal respondents, dismiss the application for mootness, and dismiss the special education claims for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the Special Education Tribunal had exclusive jurisdiction.

The Tribunal removed the personal respondents but found the application was not moot and that it retained jurisdiction to determine whether the school board's actions, including the implementation of the Individual Education Plan and the suspensions, breached the Human Rights Code.

The hearing was bifurcated into liability and remedy phases.