HRTO 2009

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

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

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent that failure to participate could lead to orders against them without their participation.

The respondent was given five days to file a Response and explain the delay, failing which the Tribunal would proceed without further notice.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board and a claims adjudicator regarding the administration of her benefits and a labour market re-entry program.

The respondents requested early dismissal on the basis that their adjudicative functions do not constitute a 'service' under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the respondents' statutory decision-making responsibilities are not susceptible to review under the Code, and dismissed the application.

The respondent employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the human rights application on the basis that the applicant had already commenced a civil action for wrongful dismissal arising from the same facts.

The Tribunal found that the civil action included claims for damages based on the employer's alleged failure to accommodate the applicant's disability under the Human Rights Code.

Applying section 34(11) of the Code, the Tribunal held that the application was barred because the applicant had asked a court to find a Code infringement and award damages.

The application was dismissed.

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

The respondent raised a jurisdictional issue, arguing that the complaint fell under the federal Canadian Human Rights Act.

The parties agreed that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction, and the applicant took steps to pursue the matter federally.

The Tribunal dismissed the application without making a formal determination on the jurisdictional issue.

The respondents brought a motion to dismiss the human rights application on the basis that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the Ontario Human Rights Commission had already made a final decision not to refer the complaint to the Tribunal.

The respondents argued that the Commission's process constituted 'another proceeding' under section 45.1 of the Code and that transferring the complaint was an abuse of process.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the Commission's processes do not constitute 'another proceeding' and that the transitional provisions of the Code permit an applicant to abandon a complaint in the reconsideration process and transfer it to the Tribunal.

The applicant filed an application alleging reprisal in employment after being terminated for refusing to work during his vacation.

The Tribunal noted that the application did not allege facts falling within the scope of section 8 of the Human Rights Code, as there was no allegation that the applicant attempted to claim or enforce Code rights.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision requiring the applicant to provide submissions detailing how the alleged conduct constituted a reprisal under the Code.

The responding party requested early dismissal or deferral of a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The responding party argued the substance of the application had been dealt with through WSIB mediation agreements and an internal investigation.

The Tribunal denied the request for early dismissal, finding the WSIB agreements were negotiated return-to-work plans rather than a proceeding that dealt with the substance of the human rights issues.

The Tribunal also denied the request for deferral, noting the internal investigation was already complete and no WSIB proceeding was pending.

The complainant requested that the hearing be reconvened to address the Ministry's alleged failure to comply with previous Tribunal orders from 2002 and 2007.

Following a pre-hearing conference, the Tribunal ordered the hearing to resume and suspended the operations of the TEDC Compliance Committee pending resolution.

The Tribunal also ordered the Ministry to produce various documents related to workplace discrimination and harassment prevention, respond to a METRAC report, and provide METRAC personnel with access to Ministry staff for evaluation purposes.

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

The respondents requested early dismissal under s. 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, arguing that a civil proceeding based on the same facts had been commenced.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the parties to provide written submissions regarding the status of the civil action and whether the application is barred.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw their human rights application against the respondents.

The respondents 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 under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondent 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.

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 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 respondent made no submissions.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

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

The respondent 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 against the respondent.

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 filed under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondent made no submissions on the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant, a tenured professor, filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex regarding her application for promotion, specifically citing comments made about her past maternity leaves.

She brought two requests for orders during proceedings: one for an expedited hearing and another for the preservation of documents related to a meeting about her promotion.

The Tribunal denied the request for an expedited hearing, finding insufficient evidence of urgent circumstances or harm if the request was denied.

However, the Tribunal granted the request for document preservation, ordering the respondents not to destroy any documents associated with the specified meeting.

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

The respondent requested a stay of proceedings on the basis that it was under protection pursuant to the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA).

The Tribunal amended the respondent's name to correctly reflect the corporate entity and granted the stay of proceedings, noting that the Superior Court's CCAA order prohibited the continuation of any tribunal proceedings against the respondent without leave of the Court or written consent.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the ground of disability and reprisal, specifically regarding the respondents' alleged failure to accommodate her inability to wear a mask due to claustrophobia.

The applicant requested that the application be expedited under Rule 21, alleging threats of termination.

The respondents denied the threats and stated they were continuing to accommodate her.

The Tribunal found that the facts were not so urgent as to warrant expediting the proceeding and directed that the matter proceed in accordance with its usual practices.