HRTO 2009

The applicant filed several preliminary requests ahead of a Case Resolution Conference, including requests to add a school board trustee as a personal respondent, record the proceedings, call expert witnesses, compel the respondents to call certain witnesses, and direct the respondent school board to provide legal counsel for the applicant.

The Tribunal denied the requests to add the respondent, record the proceedings, compel witnesses, and provide legal counsel.

The request to call a third expert witness was deferred to the adjudicator hearing the Case Resolution Conference.

The Tribunal also directed that the upcoming hearing dates be used to address the respondents' preliminary issues.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking the last name and contact details of a proposed individual respondent identified only as 'Yannick the night support manager'.

The respondent did not file a response.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to provide the full name and last known address of the individual to the applicant and the Tribunal.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to amend the remedy sought in her Application to include ongoing wage losses, severance and termination pay, and compensation for lost benefits.

The respondents did not file submissions in response.

The Tribunal granted leave to amend the Application.

The Tribunal also reminded the parties of their obligations under Rule 16 to file and deliver any documents upon which they intend to rely at least 45 days prior to the hearing.

The applicant failed to attend the originally scheduled hearing and subsequently failed to file a list of documents and witnesses as required by the Tribunal's Rules.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the applicant to confirm his intention to proceed and to file the required materials by a specified date, warning that failure to comply could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed an application alleging age discrimination after being terminated from her employment.

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

The applicant provided written submissions explaining that her delay was due to a heart attack, quadruple bypass surgery, subsequent depression, and a lack of awareness of the discrimination.

The Tribunal applied the 'plain and obvious' test and found it was not plain and obvious that the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The Tribunal directed that the application proceed and be served on the respondent.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging that a hospital and a doctor discriminated against her based on her Aboriginal ancestry by making stereotypical comments in a discharge summary.

The respondents raised preliminary objections, including that the complaint was filed out of time.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was aware of the material facts in December 2001 but did not file the complaint until February 2004.

The Tribunal rejected the applicant's argument that she was medically incapacitated from filing earlier, noting she had pursued other legal and complaint avenues during that time.

Finding no good faith reason for the delay and potential prejudice to the respondents, the Tribunal dismissed the application as out of time under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging the respondents failed to accommodate his knee disability.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred pending the conclusion of a related union grievance dealing with the same facts and issues.

The applicant, who had recently declared bankruptcy, did not respond to the Tribunal's request for submissions on the deferral.

The Tribunal found no reason to depart from its general practice of deferring applications where there is an ongoing grievance based on the same facts, and ordered the application deferred.

The applicant filed a transition application alleging discrimination and harassment based on disability.

In a previous decision, the Tribunal dismissed the accommodation allegations as having been dealt with at arbitration, but allowed the harassment allegations to proceed.

The respondent sought to dismiss the remaining allegations for delay under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, and the applicant sought reconsideration of the previous decision.

The Tribunal denied the reconsideration request, finding no factors outweighing the finality of decisions.

On the delay issue, the Tribunal held that for transition applications, the one-year period is calculated from the date of the last incident to the date the underlying complaint was filed with the Commission.

Finding that the complaint was filed within one year of the respondent's failure to communicate the results of an internal investigation, the Tribunal allowed the harassment allegations to proceed.

The applicant filed a Request for Interim Remedy following her human rights application.

Neither the applicant nor the respondents filed the declarations required by Rules 23.3 and 23.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The Tribunal directed both parties to file the required declarations before it would determine the Request, and scheduled an oral hearing for submissions.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment in employment based on race, ancestry, place of origin, and ethnic origin.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal directed the applicant to provide further particulars regarding his allegations.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene, noting its interest as the applicant's bargaining agent.

The Tribunal dismissed the respondent's request to defer the application pending the outcome of an OLRB complaint against the union, finding that the legal issues and framework were different.

Finally, the Tribunal directed the parties to comply with pre-hearing production rules.

The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination in employment on the grounds of disability and reprisal.

The respondent failed to file a Response within the required time and missed a subsequent Tribunal deadline.

Counsel for the respondent later requested an extension, explaining that the employee responsible for the Response had left the company.

The Tribunal granted the extension to May 15, 2009, warning that failure to comply would result in the respondent being deemed to have accepted the allegations and waived its right to participate.

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

The respondents made no submissions.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant filed a Request to Withdraw an Application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code but failed to deliver it to the respondents and file a Statement of Delivery as directed.

Having taken no further steps, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and closed the file.

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

The respondents consented to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination regarding his termination of employment.

The respondents brought a preliminary request to dismiss the application on the basis that the applicant had previously accepted a severance package and signed a full and final release.

The applicant argued the release was signed under duress and that he misunderstood its terms.

The Tribunal found no evidence of duress, noting the applicant received his full severance benefits and did not raise any concerns until after the severance period expired.

The Tribunal concluded that allowing the application to proceed would be an abuse of process and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in the area of goods, services and facilities against a First Nation and its daycare centre.

The respondents noted that the First Nation is a band under the Indian Act and operates the daycare on a reserve.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the parties to provide written submissions on whether the matter falls within federal or provincial jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondents.

The respondents failed to file a Response within the required 35-day period.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondents to file a Response by a specified date, along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice to them and deem them to have accepted the allegations.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking early production of e-mails and an order preventing the respondent from filling his former position pending the hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for early production as premature, noting that failure to preserve relevant data could result in an adverse inference.

The Tribunal also dismissed the request to hold the position open, finding that filling the position would not preclude a future reinstatement order if a Code violation is found.