HRTO 2009

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

The applicant's union, UNITE HERE Ontario Council, requested to intervene in the proceedings.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene as a non-party observer, allowing it to attend mediation and make submissions as to remedy at any subsequent hearing, given its significant interest as the bargaining agent for employees in the workplace.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

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 result in the Tribunal proceeding without them and deeming them to have accepted the allegations.

The respondent was given 10 days to file a Response along with an explanation for the delay.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

A mediation was scheduled, but no parties attended.

The Tribunal was advised that the corporate respondent had been ordered into receivership under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Courts of Justice Act.

The Tribunal reviewed the Receivership Order and stayed the application pending leave of the Superior Court of Justice or consent of the Receiver.

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

The corporate respondent had previously filed a proposal to its creditors under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA).

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed or stayed pursuant to the automatic stay provisions of the BIA.

The Tribunal held that if the applicant seeks monetary compensation, the claim is provable in bankruptcy and subject to the BIA stay.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to clarify whether he is seeking monetary relief and, if so, to apply to the Bankruptcy Court to lift the stay.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of creed after her application for a self-employment benefits program was denied because her proposed business involved reading tarot cards.

The respondents brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the application for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that tarot cards do not fall under the protection of creed.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application at the preliminary stage, finding that evidence of the full context of the applicant's proposal was required to determine whether there was a sufficient nexus between her religion and reading tarot cards for others.

The applicant filed a Request for Order to amend his human rights application to include an allegation of discrimination because of disability.

The respondent consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted the amendment, noting the consent and that the original application already included a description of events related to the disability claim.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, claiming the respondent refused to provide light duties and terminated his employment in 1986.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss due to the 22-year delay in filing.

The applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation to justify the delay or demonstrate it was incurred in good faith.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed an Application relating to the special diet allowance under the Ontario Disability Support Program.

As over one hundred similar complaints were already before the Tribunal and proceeding under a lead case approach, the Tribunal ordered that no further steps be required in this Application until a final decision is issued in the lead cases, unless the parties provide compelling reasons otherwise.

The applicant filed an Application alleging Contravention of Settlement against the respondents.

The respondents failed to file a Response within the required 14-day period.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondents of the consequences of failing to respond and granting them 10 days to file a Response along with an explanation for the delay.

The applicant filed an application alleging reprisal in employment contrary to s. 8 of the Human Rights Code, following his termination.

The respondents requested early dismissal under s. 53(8) of the Code, arguing the application was based on the same facts as an earlier complaint filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the earlier complaint focused on a failure to accommodate, whereas the current application deals with the subsequent termination and alleged reprisal, which were not part of the earlier complaint.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondents.

The respondents failed to file a Response within the required 35-day time limit, nor did they respond to a subsequent letter from the Tribunal extending the deadline.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondents that failure to file a Response within 10 days, along with an explanation for the delay, would result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice to them pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondents brought a request for an order during a proceeding to produce documents containing the applicant's personal health information.

The respondents argued they needed to disclose this information, which formed the basis for denying the applicant's housing application, to defend against the human rights complaint.

The Tribunal found the material relevant and necessary, ordering its production to the applicant.

However, mindful of privacy concerns under the Personal Health Information and Privacy Act, the Tribunal ordered the respondents to file only the specific portions of the material they actually relied upon in making their decision.

The applicant filed an Application under section 53(5) of the Human Rights Code and requested it be dealt with on a priority basis.

The Tribunal noted uncertainty regarding whether the underlying complaint was filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission before the June 30, 2008 deadline.

The Tribunal ordered the Commission to provide information regarding the filing date and status of the complaint, and directed the parties to file written submissions on whether the Application is properly before the Tribunal.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging that the respondent, an immigrant women's service organization, discriminated against him on the basis of sex and disability by providing services to his ex-spouse that allegedly encouraged her to falsely claim abuse and leave him.

The Tribunal found that the respondent had not provided services to the ex-spouse since June 2006, well outside the one-year limitation period.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, as his only evidence consisted of general statements from the respondent's website which did not constitute a violation of the Code.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed human rights applications against her former employer and union alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, nearly three years after her termination and over a year after the conclusion of related arbitration and OLRB proceedings.

The respondents raised preliminary objections regarding the timeliness of the applications.

The Tribunal found that the applications were filed outside the one-year time limit under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal declined to exercise its discretion to extend the time limit under section 34(2), finding no reasonable explanation for the delay and substantial prejudice to the respondents.

The applications were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a Request to Withdraw an Application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, attaching a document signed by all parties confirming a settlement.

The Tribunal dismissed the application on consent.

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 filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, noting he was forced to declare bankruptcy.

The Tribunal previously directed the applicant to provide the name and contact information of his trustee in bankruptcy.

After the applicant failed to respond, the Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the applicant to provide the requested information by a specified date, failing which the application would be considered abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that the respondents, a lawyer and law firm representing his ex-wife in matrimonial litigation, subjected him to discrimination and reprisal by making false claims about his mental health.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed on a preliminary basis because the applicant had previously filed a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission based on the same facts, which was dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the subject-matter of the current application was substantially the same as the previous complaint.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction under section 53(8) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant requested that her human rights application be expedited under Rule 21 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, citing financial hardship resulting from the respondent forcing her to take medical leave without pay.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that purely financial losses do not constitute urgent circumstances that would undermine the Tribunal's ability to conduct a fair and just hearing.