HRTO 2009

The union, representing the applicant's bargaining unit, requested intervenor status in a human rights application against the employer.

The union argued that potential remedies could impact bargaining unit members' seniority rights, policies, and procedures.

As no parties opposed the request, the Tribunal granted the union non-party intervenor status to make final submissions on remedies.

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

The respondent failed to file a Response within the required time.

The respondent contacted the Tribunal explaining that the Application was delivered to the correct address but not to a company representative because the contact person listed was inaccurate.

The Tribunal granted the respondent an extension of 35 days to file a Response.

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

The respondents requested an early dismissal of the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that an arbitral decision had appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The union sought to intervene to address the early dismissal request and potential remedies.

The Tribunal granted the union intervenor status for the preliminary hearing on the early dismissal request, finding it had a direct interest in the interpretation of the collective agreement.

The Tribunal scheduled a hearing to determine whether the arbitral decision appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The respondents requested an order to defer the applicant's human rights application pending the outcome of concurrent grievances related to his alleged dismissal or demotion over workplace harassment allegations.

The Tribunal found that the facts and issues raised in the application were related to the ongoing grievances.

The Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application, noting that the applicant would have the opportunity to have his grievances proceed to arbitration.

The applicant alleged discrimination based on age and association with seniors regarding the respondents' interpretation of a licensing by-law that required his companion services business to obtain a 'vehicles for hire' licence.

The Tribunal dismissed the application at a Case Resolution Conference, finding no prima facie basis for a Code violation.

The Tribunal held that the respondents' application of the by-law was based on the applicant's specific business model, not his age or association with seniors, and that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to address general issues of inconsistent by-law application.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code relating to the special diet allowance under the Ontario Disability Support Program.

The Tribunal noted that over one hundred similar complaints had been referred and were proceeding under a lead case approach.

The Tribunal directed that no further steps be required in this application until a final decision is issued in the lead cases, suspending the requirements for further steps unless compelling reasons are provided.

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

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that the corporate respondent's business, which involves inter-provincial truck and rail transportation, is a federally regulated undertaking.

The Tribunal found that the corporate respondent is engaged in transportation works extending beyond the limits of the province, placing it within federal jurisdiction under s. 92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The respondent's request for deferral of the Application was previously dismissed in an interim decision.

The Tribunal noted at the time that no submissions had been received from the respondent.

It was later discovered that the respondent had made timely submissions, but they were misdirected and not brought to the adjudicator's attention.

Upon reviewing the submissions, the Tribunal found that their content did not change the previous decision to dismiss the deferral request.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race and sex.

The respondent raised preliminary issues, arguing that the application was barred by a prior memorandum of settlement, that certain allegations were untimely under s. 34 of the Code, and that certain allegations did not constitute discrimination under s. 5.

The Tribunal scheduled a preliminary hearing to address these issues and set a timeline for the exchange of materials.

The respondent requested that the human rights application alleging disability discrimination be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondent argued that the applicant's prior Employment Standards Act claim for termination and vacation pay, which was settled, appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the ESA proceedings addressed statutory entitlements and did not deal with the substance of the discrimination allegations regarding the reduction of hours and dismissal.

The respondent requested the early dismissal of a human rights application alleging discrimination in the downgrading of the applicant's driver's licence.

The respondent argued the application was barred under s. 34(11)(a) of the Human Rights Code because the applicant had an outstanding appeal before the Court of Appeal.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant was not seeking human rights remedies in the civil appeal.

The Tribunal ordered a one-day hearing to address a separate jurisdictional issue regarding whether the Highway Traffic Act regulations exempt the medical qualifications for drivers from the Code.

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

The respondent failed to file a response within the required time.

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

The applicant filed an application alleging that the Ministry of Transportation discriminated against him on the basis of age by requiring him to submit to a driving test because he is 80 years of age or older.

The respondent argued that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear the application.

The Tribunal found that section 19(1) of Regulation 340/94 under the Highway Traffic Act explicitly states that the testing requirements for drivers aged 80 and over apply despite the Human Rights Code.

Pursuant to section 47(2) of the Code, the Tribunal concluded it had no jurisdiction to determine whether the testing requirements contravene the Code and dismissed the application.

The applicant sought to withdraw his 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 parties settled the human rights application, but the respondent was subsequently placed under court protection pursuant to the Companies Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA).

As the settlement terms could not be implemented, the applicant requested that the matter be held in abeyance.

The Tribunal granted the request, ordering that no further steps be taken for up to one year pending resolution of the CCAA proceedings.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order during Proceedings to add a personal respondent to her human rights application.

The applicant sought to serve the proposed respondent at the corporate respondent's address, but the corporate respondent indicated he was no longer employed there.

The Tribunal held that under Rule 19.2, the proposed respondent has an interest in the request and must be served before the Tribunal will consider adding him as a party.

The applicant was directed to deliver the Application and Request to the proposed respondent and file a Statement of Delivery.

The Tribunal reconsidered its previous decision dismissing the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The previous decision was based on the mistaken belief that the Ontario Human Rights Commission had not approved the settlement.

The Commission had in fact approved the settlement, but the correspondence was misplaced by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal found it had jurisdiction and scheduled the application for a hearing.

The CAW Local 1000, the bargaining agent for the applicant, brought a request to intervene in the human rights application.

The union argued it had an interest in the outcome because the collective agreement it administers contains harassment and discrimination provisions.

The request was unopposed by the parties.

The Tribunal granted the union non-party intervenor status, with the extent of its participation to be determined by the hearing adjudicator.

The respondents requested a second order for the production of the applicant's medical records, arguing that the applicant had unduly narrowed the scope of a previous production order to only records relating to a flu or cold.

The Tribunal agreed that the applicant had construed the prior order too narrowly, clarifying that it captured all records created by medical practitioners in relation to his health condition in the month before or after the date of the alleged intoxication.

However, the Tribunal declined to issue a second order, finding that the previous order was clear and unambiguous.

The applicant filed two Requests for Order During Proceedings before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

The first request sought to amend the Application to allege discrimination in contracts rather than employment, which the respondents consented to while seeking to amend their Response.

The Tribunal granted both parties' requests to amend their pleadings.

The second request sought production of documents, which the Tribunal dismissed as premature because the time for disclosure under Rule 16 had not yet been triggered by a Confirmation of Hearing.