HRTO 2009

The respondents requested to defer the applicant's human rights application pending the completion of a grievance filed by his union, OPSEU, which raised the same allegations.

The applicant opposed the deferral, arguing the Grievance Settlement Board lacked objectivity and his union was incompetent.

The Tribunal found no substantiated reasons to depart from its normal practice of deferring applications where an ongoing grievance deals with the same facts and issues.

The application was deferred pending the conclusion of the grievance.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The respondents requested early dismissal or deferral pending a duty of fair representation complaint at the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The applicant's union sought to intervene.

The Tribunal granted the union intervenor status.

The Tribunal declined to defer the application, noting the OLRB complaint involved different parties and legal frameworks.

The request for early dismissal was deferred pending mediation.

The applicant alleged that the school board's occasional teacher dispatch system discriminated on the basis of age by favouring retired teachers, and that he experienced reprisals.

The union requested to intervene, noting it helped develop the system and that the applicant's prior complaint to the OLRB was dismissed.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene and scheduled a hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code on the basis that the OLRB proceeding appropriately dealt with the substance of the matter.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, colour, and family status.

The respondents requested a deferral of the application pending the outcome of related union grievances, and objected to the applicant's late-filed Reply.

The union requested intervenor status.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene, accepted the applicant's late Reply due to lack of prejudice, and denied the respondents' deferral request because the remaining grievance was narrowly focused on recovering lost wages rather than the broader human rights issues.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application under section 53(8) of the Human Rights Code.

The original application was dismissed because its subject matter was substantially the same as a 2004 complaint filed with the Commission, which the applicant had withdrawn.

The applicant argued that he had new evidence of blacklisting and that his application should not have been dismissed without a hearing.

The Tribunal denied the request for reconsideration, finding that the applicant failed to meet any of the criteria under Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, as he presented no new determinative facts and identified no factors outweighing the public interest in the finality of decisions.

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

The respondents raised preliminary issues, seeking to dismiss the application for being out of time and to dismiss the disability claim for lack of pleaded facts.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss the entire application, finding the applicant had engaged in a good faith attempt to resolve the issues internally before filing.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the disability claim because the complaint contained no facts to support it.

The Tribunal also removed a deceased individual as a respondent on consent.

The complainant alleged that her employer terminated her in reprisal for a previous human rights complaint and discriminated against her based on sex (pregnancy).

The Tribunal found that a release signed in a prior settlement precluded consideration of alleged reprisals occurring before the settlement.

However, the Tribunal concluded that the complainant's termination, which occurred three weeks after the settlement, was a deliberate act of reprisal for her earlier complaint.

The Tribunal did not find sufficient evidence to establish sex discrimination.

The respondent was ordered to pay $15,000 in general damages and $42,466.79 in restitution for lost wages, and to implement human rights policies and training.

The respondent challenged the Tribunal's jurisdiction to accept a transitional human rights application, arguing that the application named an incorrect contact person and was delivered by fax without consent, exceeding the page limit.

The Tribunal found that the application was received before the statutory deadline and that the alleged delivery defects were unduly technical.

The respondent's request to dismiss the application was denied.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission sought reconsideration of a Tribunal decision dismissing human rights complaints regarding mandatory retirement for firefighters.

The Commission argued the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence and its own policy on disability and the duty to accommodate.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the Commission was attempting to re-litigate issues already fully argued and that there was no established jurisprudence on the specific issues decided.

The Tribunal also noted that the Commission had not raised its policy during the original hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines discriminate on the basis of age and sex.

In its response, the respondent requested early dismissal of the application, arguing that it is not the proper party, the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction, and the substance of the application was already dealt with in the applicant's divorce proceeding.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision scheduling a hearing to address the respondent's preliminary objections, noting that under s. 43(2) of the Human Rights Code, it cannot finally dispose of an application without affording the parties an opportunity to make oral submissions.

The respondents failed to file a Response to a human rights application.

They subsequently requested an extension of time, explaining that the corporate respondent's president had been hospitalized and passed away, leaving the Tribunal's correspondence unopened.

The Tribunal granted the extension of time and directed the respondents to file their Response by a specified date.

The respondents challenged the Tribunal's jurisdiction over an application filed under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant had previously filed a request for reconsideration with the Ontario Human Rights Commission after her complaint was dismissed.

The respondents argued that by requesting reconsideration, the applicant attorned to the Commission's jurisdiction and could not abandon the complaint to transfer it to the Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that under the transition provisions of the Code, a complaint in the reconsideration process is a continuing complaint that can be abandoned and transferred to the Tribunal.

The Tribunal affirmed its jurisdiction and directed the parties to mediation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal.

The respondent filed a partial Response raising jurisdictional objections and requested early dismissal.

The applicant filed a Request for Order to compel a full Response.

The Tribunal directed the respondent to file a complete Response, noting that a full Response is generally required prior to making preliminary objections, and the respondent's jurisdictional issue did not fall into any of the recognized exceptions.

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

At a Case Resolution Conference, the parties agreed to defer the hearing of the matter until after the applicant's appeals to the Ontario Labour Relations Board and the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board are resolved.

The parties also agreed to remove two personal respondents from the proceeding.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision reflecting these agreements.

The applicant, a lesbian, alleged that her landlord terminated her tenancy in part because of her sexual orientation.

The landlord claimed the eviction was solely due to the applicant keeping a cat in violation of the tenancy agreement.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant breached the no-pets clause, the landlord only acted on the breach after discovering the applicant's same-sex partner was staying overnight.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's sexual orientation was a factor in the decision to terminate the tenancy and awarded $2,000 in general damages for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The applicant filed a human rights application and requested to expedite the proceedings.

The respondents opposed the request, arguing that a Notice of Intention to Make a Proposal filed by the corporate respondent under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act operated as a stay of proceedings.

The Tribunal ordered the parties to provide written submissions on the legal basis for the stay and which respondents would be covered by it.

The respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to dismiss the human rights application on the basis that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over decisions of the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The adjudicator directed the applicant to file written submissions explaining why the application falls under the Human Rights Code, noting that the content and result of a statutory decision-maker's decision are generally not considered a 'service' under the Code.

The applicant filed an application alleging harassment and discrimination in employment on the basis of ancestry, creed, and reprisal.

The applicant requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the completion of an outstanding proceeding under the Police Services Act involving the same facts.

As no parties objected, the Tribunal granted the request and deferred the application to prevent concurrent proceedings and the possibility of inconsistent decisions.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of race, citizenship, disability, and reprisal against two different landlords.

Both respondents requested dismissal under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, relying on different Landlord and Tenant Board decisions.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision raising the issue of whether the claims against the two respondents should be separated to ensure a fair, just, and expeditious resolution, and directed the parties to provide submissions on the matter.

The applicant requested broad disclosure of documents prior to a Case Resolution Conference scheduled to address preliminary jurisdictional motions raised by the respondents.

The Tribunal denied the request for production, finding that the requested documents were not arguably relevant to the preliminary jurisdictional issues to be determined at the conference, which focused on whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction over the allegations and whether the applications were barred by other proceedings or statutes.