HRTO 2009

The applicant filed a transitional application under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code.

The respondents raised a preliminary issue regarding whether the underlying complaint had been filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission prior to June 30, 2008.

The Commission confirmed that the applicant had withdrawn the complaint before it was formally filed.

The Tribunal found that since no complaint was filed prior to the deadline, the applicant could not proceed under section 53(3).

The application was dismissed, with leave for the applicant to file a new application under section 34.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the respondent Children's Aid Society based on a court order making her son a Crown ward and the care he received in custody.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision raising serious questions about its jurisdiction to review court decisions, address the treatment of a child not in the applicant's custody, and consider the ground of receipt of public assistance in the context of services.

The applicant was directed to provide written submissions explaining how the Tribunal has jurisdiction over her allegations before the matter proceeds.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision dismissing his human rights application.

He alleged there was new evidence regarding the respondents' knowledge of his origin and a separate criminal matter, and raised procedural issues regarding witness testimony.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the new evidence was known to the applicant prior to the hearing and was irrelevant, and that the procedural rulings were consistent with the Tribunal's rules and jurisprudence.

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

She alleged procedural unfairness regarding an extended deadline for the respondents and challenged the Tribunal's finding that Notices of Termination were privileged.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no procedural unfairness and noting the applicant failed to identify any conflict with established jurisprudence or a matter of general or public importance.

The applicant requested an adjournment of his human rights hearing, arguing he needed time to sell his home to afford a legal opinion regarding the impact of the proceeding.

The respondent opposed the request, citing prejudice due to the availability of its witnesses and the passage of time since the applicant's termination.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, noting the applicant failed to request rescheduling within five days of receiving the Confirmation of Hearing and finding that his financial situation did not constitute an extraordinary circumstance justifying a delay.

At the hearing, the applicant requested leave to withdraw her human rights application.

The respondents consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of the Tribunal's decision dismissing her human rights application.

The applicant argued that unidentified findings of fact were inconsistent with the evidence called at the Case Resolution Conference.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant made no submissions bearing on the factors required for reconsideration under Rule 25.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant requested to withdraw her human rights application against the corporate respondent, North of Superior, while continuing against the personal respondent.

The Tribunal found that the application against the corporate respondent was barred under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code because the applicant had commenced a civil action seeking damages for human rights infringements against the same corporation.

The Tribunal requested submissions from the parties on whether the application against the personal respondent, who was an officer of the corporation, was also barred by section 34(11).

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his application on the basis that the corporate respondent was federally regulated.

The applicant sought an indefinite extension of time to obtain evidence from the Canadian Human Rights Commission regarding its jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found no basis to grant a further extension of time and, as no new evidence was provided to suggest the initial jurisdictional finding was incorrect, denied the request for reconsideration.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his application as untimely.

The applicant did not provide any new facts, evidence, or submissions addressing the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 25.5, but merely reiterated arguments made at the Case Resolution Conference.

The Tribunal denied the request for reconsideration.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination, breach of settlement, and reprisal, claiming his former employer sabotaged his employment prospects by refusing to provide a detailed reference.

At the Case Resolution Conference, the applicant relied on double hearsay evidence regarding the reference checks.

The personal respondent testified that he only confirmed the applicant's dates of employment and declined to provide further information in accordance with company policy.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's direct evidence over the applicant's hearsay evidence, found no violation of the Human Rights Code, and dismissed the application.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision dismissing his applications.

He argued that the adjudicator was in a conflict of interest because of prior employment as Crown Counsel.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant was merely seeking to re-argue issues from the Case Resolution Conference and that the conflict of interest allegation was entirely without merit, as the adjudicator had not been employed by the Ministry of the Attorney General since 1992.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination based on ethnic origin and creed after a teammate allegedly used an ethnic slur against him.

The application was filed nearly two years and eight months after the incident.

The applicant argued the delay was justified because he feared harassment and losing his ability to play in the league if he complained earlier.

The Tribunal held that the desire to avoid interpersonal discomfort and continue playing hockey did not constitute a reasonable explanation for failing to pursue human rights in a timely manner.

The application was dismissed for delay.

The applicant filed an application alleging age discrimination and requested that the matter be expedited due to the financial consequences of a potential decrease in compensation.

The Tribunal reviewed the request without requiring a response from the respondents.

Applying the high threshold for urgency, the Tribunal found that the alleged financial harm did not constitute an urgent circumstance warranting priority over other matters.

The request to expedite was denied.

The applicant sought to withdraw his human rights application with leave to re-file a new application under Part IV of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal granted the request and permitted the application to be withdrawn with leave, without any terms.

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

The respondent hospital and personal respondents consented to the withdrawal, while the other respondents made no submissions.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

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

The respondents either consented or made no submissions.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw their human rights application 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, a seasonal worker, alleged discrimination and harassment on the grounds of disability and age regarding a premature layoff and denial of winter work.

The applicant's union requested to intervene in the application, which was granted on consent.

Noting that the facts of the application substantially overlapped with ongoing union grievances, the Tribunal requested submissions from the parties on whether the application should be deferred pending the conclusion of the grievance process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination based on pregnancy.

She brought a Request for Order to add Claybrooke Marketing Inc. as a respondent, which was granted.

The applicant also requested a suspension of disclosure obligations due to the recent bankruptcy of the organizational respondent.

The Tribunal suspended the disclosure requirements pending further direction.