HRTO 2009

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

The respondents failed to file their Responses within the 35-day period.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondents that failure to file Responses by a specified deadline could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming them to have accepted the allegations.

The applicant filed human rights complaints alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of 'record of offences' after being terminated for having pending criminal charges.

The respondents raised a preliminary objection that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the applicant had not been convicted.

The Tribunal agreed, holding that the clear and unambiguous language of section 10(1) of the Human Rights Code limits the definition of 'record of offences' to individuals who have been convicted of an offence.

The applications were dismissed with respect to the record of offences ground.

The applicant was previously directed to provide further contact information for the respondent after Tribunal correspondence was returned as undeliverable.

The applicant sent an email suggesting the address was correct and that counsel for his former employer had the Application, but failed to provide the required signed Declaration.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide the required information in a signed Declaration within 21 days, failing which the Application would be returned and the file closed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability after her employment was terminated following medical leave.

She also filed a claim under the Employment Standards Act (ESA) regarding the same termination, which resulted in an Order to Pay in her favour that was under review.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the human rights application under section 45 of the Human Rights Code pending the conclusion of the ESA proceeding.

Finding that the underlying facts and remedies sought in both proceedings were identical, the Tribunal concluded it was fair, just, and expeditious to defer the application to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions.

The applicant filed a transitional application under section 53(5) of the Human Rights Code and requested an interim remedy of $400 per week in wages until the application is resolved.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant had not established that the balance of convenience favoured granting the interim remedy, as the application involved a loss of work opportunity and the applicant was not dependent on the income sought.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw his human rights application against the Toronto Transit Commission 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 Psychiatric Patient Advocate Office (PPAO) requested leave to intervene in a human rights complaint challenging the Toronto Police Services Board's policy on disclosing Mental Health Act apprehensions in police reference checks.

The PPAO sought to participate by way of written submissions on the legal issues.

With the consent of the complainants and the Commission, and no objections from the respondent or the Attorney General, the Tribunal granted the PPAO intervenor status, noting its significant interest and distinct perspective on mental health issues.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the Toronto Public Library and several individuals, alleging discrimination and harassment based on multiple grounds.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed for failing to make out a prima facie case and for being untimely, and that the personal respondents be removed.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the applicant to provide written submissions clarifying the timeliness of the allegations, the connection between the alleged conduct and the Code grounds, and the basis for continuing the application against the personal respondents.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code alleging employment discrimination on the basis of race, colour, and place of origin.

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

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondent to file a Response by February 20, 2009, along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice and deem the respondent to have accepted the allegations.

The applicant filed an Application under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code, which allows a complainant who filed a complaint with the Commission prior to June 30, 2008, to abandon it and file with the Tribunal.

The Commission advised that although it received a completed complaint form from the applicant, it was closed as an inquiry only and no formal complaint was filed.

The Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction to process the Application under section 53(3) because no complaint was filed with the Commission prior to June 30, 2008.

The complainant sought reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision dismissing his human rights complaint against the City of London.

He argued that new evidence obtained through a freedom of information request supported his version of events.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding it was filed outside the 30-day time limit without a valid reason.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the new evidence was not determinative of the central issue of whether race was a factor in the incident, and could have reasonably been obtained earlier.

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

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Directive requiring a response by February 4, 2009.

The applicant failed to respond, and the Tribunal discovered he had moved without updating his contact information.

The Tribunal contacted him through an alternate number and ordered him to provide the required written response by February 18, 2009.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability after she was not promoted to a Frontline Counsellor position.

The applicant claimed her employer told her she needed to improve her interview skills, which she alleged constituted a disability.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the applicant to provide written submissions explaining how her interview skills qualify as a disability under section 10 of the Human Rights Code, in order to determine if the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the application.

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

The respondents made no submissions on the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the Application was withdrawn.

The applicant requested to re-activate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the outcome of a union grievance.

The union withdrew the grievance, prompting the applicant to seek resumption of the Tribunal proceeding.

The respondent argued the application should remain deferred until the applicant exhausted remedies under the Labour Relations Act regarding the union's representation.

The Tribunal granted the request to re-activate, finding that the grievance had concluded and there was no longer any proceeding to defer to.

The applicant sought to withdraw her human rights application filed under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant requested to withdraw her human rights application alleging discrimination in services.

The respondent consented to the withdrawal but requested that it be entirely dispositive and that the applicant be precluded from re-filing.

The Tribunal found no basis to impose such terms and permitted the withdrawal without terms, noting the respondent could raise these issues if a new application is filed.

The applicant filed an application under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code, transitioning a complaint originally filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

The respondents argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the Commission had dismissed the complaint and the applicant failed to file a timely request for reconsideration.

The adjudicator found that the applicant's request for reconsideration was filed outside the statutory 15-day period and the Commission had not granted an extension.

Consequently, the complaint was not 'continued' within the meaning of section 53, and the Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed an application under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code based on a complaint previously filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

The respondent argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the Commission had already dismissed the underlying complaint against the respondent prior to the transition period.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that since the complaint against the named respondent was finally determined by the Commission, there was no 'continued complaint' that could be abandoned to form the basis of a section 53(3) application.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that barred her reprisal application under s. 53(8) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued the decision conflicted with established caselaw or procedure and involved a matter of general or public importance.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding the applicant merely restated her previous positions and failed to demonstrate any conflict with established jurisprudence or procedure.