HRTO 2009

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings asking the Tribunal to order the respondent to provide the names and contact information of the driver and supervisor involved in the alleged discriminatory incidents.

The respondent did not file a response to the request.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to provide the correct names and contact information of the driver and supervisor to enable the application to be sent to them as individual respondents.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that his former lawyer discriminated against him on the basis of disability by failing to accommodate his condition and taking advantage of his impaired mental abilities.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal dismiss or defer the application because the applicant had also commenced an assessment of the respondent's legal fees under the Solicitors Act.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the assessment hearing would not determine whether a Code violation occurred and could not provide human rights remedies.

The Tribunal also declined to defer the application, noting that the two proceedings were distinct in their focus, legal theories, and potential remedies.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and family status regarding the medical treatment and death of her infant daughter.

Prior to filing the human rights complaint, the applicant commenced a civil action in negligence and professional malpractice against the same respondents based on the same factual allegations.

The Tribunal found that the civil claim was sufficiently broad to encompass a claim of a Code violation.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the human rights application as barred by section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, which prevents duplicate proceedings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging her employer failed to accommodate her disability.

Her union, Teamsters Local Union 419, requested intervener status, noting that a related grievance had been referred to arbitration.

The Tribunal granted the union's unopposed request to intervene.

As the arbitration could resolve the human rights issues, the Tribunal directed the parties to provide written submissions on whether the application should be deferred pending the outcome of the arbitration.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging termination of employment based on disability.

The respondent failed to file a response within the required 35-day period.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent of the consequences of failing to respond under Rule 5.5 and extended the deadline to file a response to June 16, 2009.

The applicants, two sisters who were terminated on the same date, filed human rights applications alleging reprisal under section 8 of the Human Rights Code.

They alleged they were terminated after supporting a co-worker's harassment allegations during a workplace investigation.

The Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the applications were outside its jurisdiction.

The Tribunal also granted the applicants' requests to have their applications heard together due to the significant overlap in facts and issues, and directed the matters to mediation.

The applicant, an eleven-year-old student, alleged that the school board's head lice policy discriminated on the basis of age.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed several procedural requests.

The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's requests for an interim remedy, to add the examining nurse as a respondent, and for early production of documents.

The Tribunal denied a publication ban but ordered that the applicant and her next friend be anonymized in decisions due to her age and the potential stigma.

The Tribunal also directed that the applicant's constitutional challenge to the definition of age in the Human Rights Code be heard as a preliminary issue.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the allegations related to a complaint previously filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

Pursuant to section 53(8) of the Code, the Tribunal cannot accept a section 34 application based on a prior Commission complaint.

The application was dismissed, with instructions that the applicant must file a transitional application under section 53(5) if he wishes to pursue the claim.

The respondent Toronto Police Services Board requested a stay, deferral, or adjournment of a scheduled Case Resolution Conference pending the outcome of a judicial review in a separate matter (King v. Toronto Police Services Board) concerning the Board's liability for the actions of individual police officers.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the balance of convenience strongly favoured proceeding with the hearing without further delay, and noted the Board's unreasonable delay in raising the request.

The applicant filed two human rights applications alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment against Rogers Inc. and Kevin Pennington.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision raising the issue of whether it has jurisdiction over the applications, noting that Rogers Inc. may be a federally-regulated business subject to the Canadian Human Rights Act.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide written submissions explaining why the applications fall within provincial jurisdiction, and waived the respondents' requirement to file a response pending the jurisdictional determination.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, race, colour, and place of origin, primarily concerning his termination and the denial of sick pay.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed requests to add parties and clarify the scope of the hearing.

The Tribunal removed the individual respondent, replacing him with the employer, Hamilton Health Sciences Corporation.

The Tribunal declined to add the employer's third-party benefits consultant as a respondent, finding no allegations that could support a Code violation against it.

The Tribunal also noted the applicant had narrowed his claims to focus on his termination due to disability and systemic discrimination in the sick plan, and provided procedural directions for the upcoming hearing.

The applicant filed an application alleging that the respondent township failed to adequately respond to the contamination of his water supply and treated him differently from others.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the allegations did not relate to any specified grounds of discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment based on "reprisal or threat of reprisal," citing a hostile work environment, verbal harassment, and criticism by her manager.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the applicant did not allege that the respondents' behaviour was in response to claiming or enforcing a right under the Human Rights Code, participating in proceedings, or refusing to infringe another's rights.

The Tribunal concluded it lacked jurisdiction over general claims of unfair treatment in employment that are not linked to a prohibited ground under the Code.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed transitional applications under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code against his employer and union.

In this interim decision, the applicant sought to add an individual as a personal respondent to the union application and to amend the application.

The Tribunal denied the request to add the party, citing Rule 6.3 and the need for an expeditious process, noting the individual's actions would bind the union if acting as its agent.

The request to amend was also denied as the proposed changes were merely clarifications or particulars.

The applicant filed a transitional application alleging reprisal in employment against her former employer and several individuals.

She claimed that a coworker demeaned her and that management failed to intervene.

The Tribunal dismissed the application at a Case Resolution Conference, finding that the applicant failed to identify any protected ground of discrimination or provide evidence that the alleged conduct was a reprisal for claiming or enforcing a right under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application.

The respondents failed to file Responses despite a previous interim decision directing them to do so.

The Tribunal found it appropriate to deem the respondents to have accepted all facts alleged in the Application and to have waived any right to participate in the proceedings.

A Case Resolution Conference was scheduled to allow the applicant to present evidence regarding requested remedies.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, along with a request to expedite the proceedings due to financial hardship following her termination.

The respondent opposed the request, noting the applicant was receiving salary continuation and benefits as part of a negotiated settlement.

The Tribunal denied the request to expedite, finding that the applicant's financial concerns did not constitute truly urgent circumstances that would justify giving the application priority over other matters.

The complainant requested that the adjudicator recuse himself, alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias because the adjudicator disclosed information provided 'in confidence' to the other parties.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that its rules require all communications to be shared with all parties and do not permit confidential communications.

The adjudicator also noted that a prior recusal request based on his professional relationship with the Toronto Police Association had already been addressed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed under s. 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, arguing a civil claim based on the same facts had been filed.

The Tribunal found that the parties had consented to dismiss the small claims court action, meaning the applicant was no longer seeking a civil remedy.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application and directed the matter to mediation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on 'record of offences' and 'reprisal' following her resignation from employment.

The Tribunal previously directed the applicant to provide written submissions explaining how her allegations fit within the Code, but she failed to do so.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not allege facts meeting the definition of 'record of offences' or 'reprisal' under the Code.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.