HRTO 2009

The applicant filed two transitional applications under the Human Rights Code against OPSEU and the provincial government.

The Tribunal ordered that the applications proceed together for the purposes of mediation to ensure a fair, just, and highly expeditious process.

The Tribunal also amended the name of the corporate respondent to OPSEU on consent of the parties.

The applicant filed human rights applications against the respondents.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the applicant had commenced a civil action based on the same facts.

The applicant subsequently discontinued the civil action.

The Tribunal found it unnecessary to decide whether section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code applied, and directed the Registrar to deliver the applications to the respondents.

The respondent landlord requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision finding she discriminated against the applicant tenant.

The respondent argued there was new evidence regarding the applicant's prior tenancy history and raised procedural fairness concerns about the hearing process.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding the alleged new evidence did not relate to the applicant and the procedural complaints were attempts to re-argue rulings made during the hearing.

The Tribunal concluded the respondent failed to establish grounds for reconsideration under Rule 25.5.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sexual harassment and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, relating to incidents that occurred between 1983 and 2001.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed for delay, as it was filed in 2008, well beyond the one-year time limit under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued the delay was justified due to a poisoned work environment and her mental health issues.

The Tribunal found the application was filed out of time and that the applicant failed to establish the delay was incurred in good faith under section 34(2), noting she had been capable of initiating other legal proceedings during the same period.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race, ancestry, and sex.

After the respondent filed a response, the applicant's former counsel advised they no longer represented her and did not have her current contact information.

The Tribunal issued an Interim Decision directing the applicant to provide updated contact information and confirm her interest in proceeding, warning that failure to do so could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond and the correspondence was returned.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and closed the file.

The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination in housing on the basis of disability.

The respondent failed to file a Response despite receiving notice of the Application and two Interim Decisions directing it to do so.

The Tribunal ordered that the respondent is deemed to have accepted all allegations in the Application and waived all rights to notice or participation in the proceedings, pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her application alleging reprisal.

The applicant argued that her removal from a supply teachers' roster was an attack on her dignity and constituted discrimination because she was treated differently from other teachers.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the applicant failed to link the employer's actions to any attempt to claim or enforce rights under the Human Rights Code, and that none of the conditions for reconsideration under Rule 25.5 were met.

The applicant filed a human rights application naming his former employer and several individuals, including a former employee, as respondents.

The former employee failed to pick up the application sent by courier and regular mail, and contacted the Tribunal to advise she was too ill to participate and objected to her contact information being shared.

The Tribunal directed that the former employee be deemed to have received the application and ordered her to file a Response.

The Tribunal held that if she wished to be removed as a respondent, she must first file a Response and then make a formal Request for an Order During Proceedings, providing any supporting medical evidence to all parties.

The applicants failed to attend a scheduled Case Resolution Conference despite having notice and their prior adjournment request being denied.

After waiting thirty minutes, the adjudicator commenced the hearing in their absence.

Upon the respondents' request, the applications were dismissed due to the applicants' failure to attend or provide a satisfactory explanation.

The applicant, a head custodian, alleged that his employer failed to properly accommodate his physical injuries and that he was subjected to harassment and reprisals based on his disability and age.

The Tribunal found that the employer had reasonably accommodated the applicant's limitations by modifying his duties, purchasing specialized equipment, and adjusting his schedule.

The Tribunal held that the applicant was not entitled to dictate his preferred accommodation and that the employer's proposals were reasonable.

The allegations of harassment and unsafe work conditions were also dismissed as unsubstantiated.

The applicant filed a human rights application but failed to attend the scheduled Case Resolution Conference.

The Tribunal attempted to contact the applicant without success.

As the applicant bears the responsibility to attend and provide evidence in support of the allegations, the application was dismissed for failure to appear.

The applicant filed a human rights application on behalf of his father, a nursing home resident, alleging discrimination based on disability after the respondents refused to administer prescribed homeopathic drops without authorization from the home's doctor.

The applicant brought a Request to Expedite Proceedings, citing the deterioration of his father's health.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding sufficient urgency given the potential impact on the father's well-being and noting that both respondents consented to expediting the matter.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, claiming the respondent failed to accommodate her non-work related back injury.

She also requested to expedite the proceedings because she would soon be without income.

The respondent and the applicant's union, which had filed a grievance on her behalf, requested that the application be deferred pending the arbitral process.

The Tribunal denied the request to expedite, finding no urgent circumstances affecting the fair and just resolution of the merits, and deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance.

The complainant failed to attend a scheduled pre-hearing conference call.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision noting the seriousness of human rights applications and the obligation of parties to comply with Tribunal directions.

The complainant was ordered to advise the Tribunal in writing by a specified date whether he wished to pursue his complaint and to explain his absence, failing which the complaint may be dismissed as abandoned.

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

The respondents raised a preliminary issue, arguing that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the corporate respondent, which provides a live dealer internet gaming experience, is a federally regulated enterprise engaged in telecommunications.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the corporate respondent's business of providing online gambling services via the internet falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

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

The Tribunal scheduled a hearing and sent notices to both parties.

Neither party complied with disclosure requirements, and neither party attended the scheduled hearing.

The adjudicator concluded that the applicant had abandoned the application and dismissed it.

The applicant sought to proceed with his human rights application despite a Superior Court receivership order staying proceedings against the respondents.

The applicant requested the Tribunal to compel the receiver to respond to a settlement offer and consent to the application.

The Tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to disregard the Superior Court's order and required the applicant to commence a motion in the Superior Court to lift the stay, failing which the application would be dismissed.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing after retaining counsel who was unavailable on the hearing date.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that retaining counsel after a hearing is scheduled does not justify an adjournment absent exceptional circumstances.

The respondent also requested that the application be dismissed on a preliminary basis prior to the hearing.

The Tribunal directed that the preliminary issue be dealt with at the scheduled hearing.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to remove the corporate respondent, which was in receivership, and continue the human rights application against the individual respondents.

The applicant also requested an order compelling the Receiver to provide contact information for two individual respondents who may not have received notice.

The Tribunal ordered the Receiver to provide the current or most recent addresses for the two individuals to facilitate service, deferring the determination of whether the stay of proceedings precluded continuing against the individuals until after notice was delivered.

The respondent Ministry brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings to strike allegations regarding the complainant's suspension and failure to obtain work with a private service provider, arguing they were not part of the original human rights complaint.

The Tribunal found that the allegations were encompassed by the complaint as referred, given the Commission's investigation process.

Alternatively, the Tribunal exercised its discretion to allow an amendment to the complaint, finding no actual prejudice to the respondents and that it would be unfair not to allow the amendment.