HRTO 2009

The applicant failed to provide updated contact information after notices of hearing and interim decisions were returned as undeliverable.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide a current mailing address and confirm his interest in proceeding, warning that failure to do so could result in abandonment.

The applicant did not respond.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed three human rights applications alleging discrimination based on disability against a hospital (GBHS), a medical association (OMA), and the Ministry of Health (MOH), arguing they had a positive duty to intervene in her accommodation dispute with her physicians group.

The Tribunal dismissed the GBHS application under s. 34(11) of the Code because the applicant was seeking a remedy for the same alleged infringement in a concurrent civil action.

The OMA application was dismissed for failing to establish a prima facie case, as the OMA lacked sufficient control or power over the physicians to trigger a duty to intervene.

The request to dismiss the MOH application was denied, as the Ministry's funding agreement provided sufficient control to potentially trigger a duty to address the alleged discrimination.

The applicant, who has a neuromuscular disability, requested an interim remedy requiring her apartment building's superintendent to assist her with opening specific doors.

The Tribunal applied the test for interim remedies under Rule 23, finding that the application appeared to have merit, the balance of harm favoured the applicant, and the remedy was just and appropriate.

The respondent was ordered to ensure the superintendent assists the applicant when requested until the hearing on the merits.

The applicant, a part-time retail employee at a winery, alleged sexual harassment by a director and reprisal by the corporate employer.

The applicant claimed the director made inappropriate comments, including calling her 'boobie girl'.

The Tribunal found the comments were offensive but did not constitute sexual harassment under the Code.

However, the Tribunal found that the corporate respondent stopped scheduling the applicant shortly after another employee raised concerns about the director's conduct on the applicant's behalf.

The Tribunal concluded the termination of employment was at least partially a reprisal for raising human rights concerns, violating section 8 of the Code.

The applicant was awarded $2,000 in general damages and $2,340 for lost wages.

The applicant filed an application alleging the respondent contravened a settlement reached under the old Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal sought submissions on whether it had jurisdiction to enforce the settlement, as it had not been approved by the Commission at the time it was signed.

The Commission advised that the failure to obtain approval was an error and subsequently approved the settlement.

The Tribunal found that because the settlement was effected by the Commission before June 30, 2008, and was now approved by the Commission before December 30, 2008, it had jurisdiction to deal with the application under sections 45.9 and 54 of the Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the Ministry of the Attorney General, alleging discrimination on the basis of sex by a Family Court judge and lawyers during a pre-trial conference.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the Ministry does not provide a service under the Code that includes overseeing judges and lawyers, who are governed by the Canadian Judicial Council and the Law Society of Upper Canada, respectively.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held it has no jurisdiction to review or vary an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

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

After the respondent filed its Response, the applicant's former counsel advised they no longer represented her and she had moved to Ontario.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide her current contact information and confirm her intention to proceed with the application by April 16, 2009, failing which the application may be deemed abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application against two former landlords, alleging discrimination in maintenance, entry, and eviction.

Both respondents requested dismissal under s. 45.1 of the Code, arguing the substance was dealt with by the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The Tribunal previously sought submissions on whether the applications should be separated.

The applicant opposed separation, but the Tribunal found that separating the applications would be the most fair, just, and expeditious process.

The Tribunal ordered the applications separated and scheduled one-day hearings for each to address all issues, including the s. 45.1 requests.

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

Despite agreeing to mediation, the applicant failed to provide available dates or respond to subsequent Tribunal correspondence.

The Tribunal warned the applicant that failure to respond would result in the application being deemed abandoned.

When the applicant still did not respond, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The respondents requested early dismissal of a transitional human rights application because the applicant filed his statement of additional facts and remedy late and without sufficient particulars.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that transitional applications are intended to be dealt with expeditiously and that entertaining preliminary objections would detract from this goal.

The Tribunal found the lack of particulars did not prevent the respondents from filing a response, and any consequences of the late filing would be addressed at the Case Resolution Conference.

The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, and ethnic origin.

The respondent argued that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the applicant's employment fell under federal jurisdiction over banking.

The applicant contended he worked in securities for a separate entity, not in banking.

The adjudicator found insufficient evidence to determine jurisdiction on the written record, ordered the respondent to file a full response, and scheduled a preliminary hearing on the jurisdictional issue.

The applicant requested reconsideration of an interim decision that deferred her human rights application pending the conclusion of an Employment Standards Act proceeding.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, noting that Rule 25.1 only permits reconsideration of final decisions, and an interim decision deferring an application is not a final decision.

The applicant alleged that a member of the Landlord and Tenant Board discriminated against her during a hearing and in a decision.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario dismissed the application, finding that the content, reasons, and result of a statutory decision-making process do not constitute a 'service' under the Human Rights Code, and therefore the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter.

The applicant filed human rights applications alleging discrimination on the basis of race and colour regarding his termination of employment and the union's subsequent failure to take his grievance to arbitration.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed the applicant's request for production of documents.

The Tribunal ordered the employer to confirm the number of persons terminated for the same incident in 2006 and 2007, finding it arguably relevant.

The Tribunal also ordered the union to produce the Grievance Appeal Report, rejecting the union's claim of privilege because the grievance procedure itself formed the basis of the alleged discrimination.

The request for production of the number of union appeals and arbitrations was denied as irrelevant.

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

The applicant had previously failed to attend mediation, failed to follow case management directions, and failed to maintain contact with the Tribunal or the respondent.

The respondent appeared at the conference and requested that the application be dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's behaviour indicated an intention to no longer pursue the application and dismissed it.

The complainant, alleging racial discrimination by police during an arrest for drug trafficking, requested the production of arrest records and recognizances for all individuals arrested in the same undercover operation.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the complainant failed to demonstrate the arguable relevance of the records to his specific allegations of racial profiling and mistreatment.

The Tribunal also confirmed the bifurcation of the hearing into liability and remedy phases.

The applicant and respondents agreed to settle a human rights application during mediation.

The Tribunal prematurely issued an order finally disposing of the application before receiving the signed Minutes of Settlement.

One of the personal respondents failed to sign the agreement or pay his portion.

The Tribunal rescinded its previous order, confirmed the application was finally disposed of against the two respondents who signed and paid, and allowed the application to proceed against the non-signing respondent and the corporate respondent.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application for failing to disclose a factual basis for discrimination.

The applicant argued there were new facts and that the Tribunal's early dismissal conflicted with established procedure.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that the applicant merely resubmitted previous arguments, failed to identify any determinative new evidence, and that the early dismissal was consistent with the Tribunal's discretionary power to ensure fair and expeditious resolution.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his application due to a delay of over 30 years.

The applicant argued that his application had merit and sought a hearing on the substance of his allegations.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant merely disagreed with the original decision and that none of the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5 of the Rules of Procedure were met.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision addressing multiple procedural issues in two consolidated human rights applications involving cross-allegations of sexual harassment between two former employees.

The Tribunal ruled on the admissibility of late-filed documents, methods of document delivery, production of electronic emails, amendments to pleadings to add grounds and increase claimed damages, the order of proceedings, and requests to sever the applications.

The Tribunal permitted the amendments, ordered searches for the electronic email, set the order of testimony, and affirmed that the applications would continue to be heard together.