HRTO 2009

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

The respondents made no submissions on the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

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

The respondent made no submissions on the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw his human rights application 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The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.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 filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the grounds of disability and reprisal, and requested that the proceedings be expedited.

Both parties indicated a willingness to mediate.

The Tribunal ordered that mediation be scheduled on an expedited basis and deferred the determination of the request to expedite the proceedings until after mediation, should it not result in a settlement.

The applicant filed a Request to Expedite her human rights application, citing financial hardship due to unemployment and lost income.

The Tribunal reviewed the request under its Rules of Procedure and determined that the financial harm described did not meet the high threshold of true urgency required to warrant giving the application priority over other matters.

The request to expedite was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of family status and marital status against multiple respondents, including his former wife, judges, Legal Aid Ontario, the York Region Police, and others, arising from a family law dispute.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for Jurisdiction.

After reviewing the applicant's submissions, the Tribunal dismissed the application against all respondents except the York Region Police, finding no jurisdiction over the other parties as the allegations did not relate to a protected social area or ground under the Code.

The claim against the police for allegedly refusing services on the basis of sex was permitted to proceed.

The applicant, a child with Autism Spectrum Disorder, filed a human rights application alleging that the Minister of Education discriminated against him by failing to provide or fund appropriate special education programs, specifically intensive intervention.

The respondent requested early dismissal of the application, arguing it was bound by the Court of Appeal's decision in Wynberg.

The Tribunal agreed, finding the claim indistinguishable from Wynberg, which held that the Ministry's failure to mandate Intensive Behavioural Intervention in school boards did not amount to prima facie discrimination on the basis of disability.

The application was dismissed.

The complainant, who uses a motorized scooter for mobility, alleged discrimination in services on the basis of disability after the owner of a laundromat demanded she move her scooter outside and subsequently told her to take her business elsewhere.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario found that the respondent owner failed to accommodate the complainant's disability-related needs in a manner that respected her dignity when he insisted she place her scooter outside, despite her concerns about theft and cold weather.

The Tribunal also found that the subsequent request for her to take her business elsewhere flowed directly from this discriminatory conduct.

The corporate respondent and the owner were held jointly and severally liable and ordered to pay $2,500 in general damages, read the Commission's policy on the duty to accommodate, and post a Code card.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of record of offences, arguing that a job advertisement requiring a criminal record search was discriminatory.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant did not apply for the position and questioned whether the advertisement's language violated the Code's protections regarding record of offences.

The Tribunal scheduled a conference call hearing to determine whether the alleged facts amount to discrimination in employment before proceeding further.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services (OCCPS) after it dismissed his complaint against the Windsor Police Service.

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

The Tribunal held that it does not have jurisdiction to deal with claims of discrimination relating entirely to the adjudicative functions of a statutory tribunal.

The application was dismissed.

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

The Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE), which had previously represented the applicant and filed a grievance regarding his dismissal, submitted a Request to Intervene.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the union had an interest in the issues of remedy and any potential impact on the collective agreement.

The applicant sought to file a transitional application under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code based on a complaint previously filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

The respondents argued the application was barred because the Commission had already dismissed the complaint and upheld its dismissal on reconsideration before the application was filed.

The Tribunal found that the complaint was finally dealt with when the Commission refused reconsideration, extinguishing the right to file a transitional application.

The application was dismissed.

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

A peremptory hearing was scheduled for June 2, 2009.

Neither the applicant nor his counsel attended the hearing.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed due to the applicant's failure to comply with Tribunal rules and directions, and his failure to attend.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, noting that applicants are expected to take the process seriously and attend scheduled hearings.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because he had filed a complaint with the Law Society of Upper Canada against counsel for one of the respondents, alleging a conflict of interest.

The respondents did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal found that these constituted exceptional circumstances justifying an adjournment.

The hearing was cancelled, and the matter was placed in abeyance for up to one year pending the resolution of the complaint.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of perceived mental disability after his participation in a vocational placement was terminated.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application was filed more than a year after the last incident.

The applicant submitted that he only became aware of the discrimination when he obtained access to unfavourable reports months later.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's response appeared to satisfy the limitation period requirements at this preliminary stage and directed that the application be served on the respondents.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment and membership in a vocational association on the ground of ethnic origin.

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

After waiting 30 minutes and confirming that the applicant had notice of the hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the application due to the applicant's non-attendance.

During a pre-hearing conference call, the complainant requested that the adjudicator recuse himself on the basis of a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The complainant argued that the adjudicator improperly raised the issue of bifurcating the hearing, was rude or condescending, and improperly allowed Commission counsel to confirm scheduling dates with a colleague.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding no basis for a reasonable apprehension of bias, noting that the Tribunal's Rules of Practice permit raising issues at a pre-hearing conference and that his interventions were necessary to control the process.

The applicant filed a transition application under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code alleging racial discrimination, name-calling, and bullying at school.

At the case resolution conference, the respondents objected that the specific allegations raised by the applicant's litigation guardian were beyond the scope of the original complaint filed with the Commission and were out of time.

The Tribunal dismissed the preliminary objection for all but one allegation, finding that the allegations of name-calling and bullying were particulars of the general allegations in the original complaint and fell within the one-year time limit.

The applicant filed an application under section 53(5) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal previously advised the applicant that the application was incomplete.

The applicant subsequently copied the Tribunal on numerous lengthy emails addressed to the respondents that were unrelated to the application.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision ordering the applicant to cease copying the Tribunal on emails unless the subject line specifically relates to the current application.

The complainant, a former police constable with the Peel Regional Police Services Board, sought to add the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) as a respondent to her human rights complaint.

The complaint alleged discrimination and reprisals by Peel after she left to join the OPP.

The Tribunal applied the Payne test and found that the facts alleged, if proven, could not lead to a finding that the OPP violated the complainant's rights under the Code.

Furthermore, adding the OPP at this stage would fundamentally alter the nature and scope of the complaint, contrary to the Tribunal's mandate to resolve matters fairly, justly, and expeditiously.

The request to add the OPP as a party was dismissed.