HRTO 2010

The applicant filed a human rights application after the one-year time limit.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for delay.

The applicant submitted that the delay was caused by medical conditions, including depression, confusion, and memory loss, which affected her ability to complete the application accurately.

The Tribunal applied the 'plain and obvious' test and found it was not plain and obvious that the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The Tribunal directed that the application be served on the respondents, noting that the respondents could still raise the issue of delay.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that upheld her human rights application in part and awarded her $2,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

She argued the damages were too low and that the personal respondents and a non-party corporation should be held liable.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding no new evidence, no conflict with established jurisprudence, and no basis to hold the personal respondents or the non-party liable.

The applicant, a server at a golf course, alleged she was sexually harassed by a customer and that the respondent employer contributed to the behaviour and failed to adequately respond to her complaints, leading to a poisoned work environment and her resignation.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's management did not encourage or condone the customer's inappropriate behaviour.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the respondent's response to the applicant's complaint was reasonable and met its obligations under the Code, particularly given the reasonable assumption that the police were investigating the customer's conduct.

The application was dismissed.

Following a Case Conference Hearing, the parties agreed to new hearing dates in September 2010.

The complainant subsequently requested earlier hearing dates.

The Tribunal deferred addressing the request to re-schedule, directing the parties to consult on outstanding procedural issues if the upcoming mediation does not resolve the complaint.

The applicant filed an application under section 53(5) of the Human Rights Code.

At the hearing, the Tribunal granted the applicant leave, on consent, to withdraw the application against the individual respondents and ordered the style of cause amended accordingly.

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

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because the applicant had also filed a claim under the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (ESA) arising from the same circumstances.

The Tribunal found that proceeding concurrently in two forums could lead to inconsistent findings and would be unfair to the parties.

Noting that the remedies available under the ESA for pregnancy-related terminations are similar to those under the Code, the Tribunal ordered the application deferred until the ESA proceeding is concluded or abandoned.

The applicant filed a transitional application and a subsequent section 34 application under the Human Rights Code against the respondents.

On agreement of the parties, the Tribunal adjourned the hearing of the transitional application to join it with the section 34 application, as both related to an ongoing series of events.

The parties also agreed to enter into mediation to resolve both applications.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates because she had recently retained counsel who required more time to prepare.

The corporate respondent also requested a production order against two third parties.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, finding that the late retention of counsel was within the applicant's control and did not constitute an extraordinary circumstance justifying an adjournment.

The Tribunal also declined to issue a production order against the third parties, directing the corporate respondent to use the Tribunal's summons process instead.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination.

The corporate respondent settled, leaving only the personal respondent.

The personal respondent requested that the Tribunal determine the issue of the applicant's delay in filing the application as a preliminary matter.

The Tribunal directed the parties to file written submissions on the delay issue before making a determination.

The applicant filed a human rights application against multiple respondents.

One respondent, Michael Achaibar, failed to file a Response after being served with the Notice of Application.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the non-responding respondent that failure to file a Response within 5 days could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming him to have accepted the allegations, pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of ethnic origin and creed, as well as reprisal.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to be filed more than one year after the last incident of discrimination.

The applicant submitted that he was waiting for the result of a union grievance.

The Tribunal ordered the application and the applicant's submissions to be served on the respondent and the union, and directed them to file submissions on the delay issue.

The applicant sought disclosure of documents relating to other candidates in four employment competitions.

In a previous interim decision, the Tribunal determined the documents were arguably relevant.

The respondents withheld the documents, believing a Tribunal order was required.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to immediately disclose the relevant documents regarding candidates who advanced to the interview or assessment stages.

The applicant, a person with a disability who uses a wheelchair, filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination and reprisal by the Toronto Transit Commission's Wheel-Trans service.

The respondent requested the dismissal of the application for failure to establish a prima facie case, non-compliance with disclosure rules, and improper expansion of the complaint's scope.

The Tribunal reviewed the specific incidents alleged and dismissed several for failing to establish a nexus to a Code ground, while allowing others to proceed to a hearing.

The Tribunal relieved against strict compliance with disclosure rules, struck systemic allegations that improperly expanded the scope of the individual complaint, and denied the applicant's request for an adjournment to retain new counsel.

The applicant filed an application alleging age discrimination in employment.

The respondent filed a partial response requesting that the application be dismissed on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision scheduling a teleconference to hear oral submissions on the preliminary issue of the release, as required by section 43(2) of the Human Rights Code, unless the parties consent to a written hearing.

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 of the consequences of failing to participate under Rule 5.5 of the Rules of Procedure, and granted the respondent a final 15 days to file a Response and explain the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code and requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the application until a related union grievance proceeding was completed.

The respondents agreed to the deferral.

The Tribunal found no reason not to defer and ordered the application deferred pending the conclusion of the grievance process.

The applicant filed a human rights application naming the Ministry of Community and Social Services and Christine Nelson as respondents.

The Ministry advised it was incorrectly named and that the correct organizational respondent was the City of Toronto.

On consent of all parties, the Tribunal dismissed the application against the Ministry and added the City of Toronto as a respondent.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The respondent school board filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to remove Our Lady of Lourdes School and Catholic Education Centre as respondents, arguing they are not legal entities capable of responding to the application.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting that the school board would be vicariously liable for any actions attributed to the erroneously named respondents, and removed them from the application.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex, claiming she was terminated due to pregnancy.

The respondents requested early dismissal under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that a prior decision by an Employment Standards Officer appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision scheduling a hearing to consider the s. 45.1 request, noting that s. 43(2) of the Code requires affording parties a chance to make oral submissions before finally disposing of an application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging racial discrimination and reprisal by the Peel Regional Police Services, more than a year after the last alleged incident.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss due to the delay.

The applicant argued he was waiting for other agencies, including the Information and Privacy Commissioner, to conclude their investigations before filing.

The Tribunal found that waiting for other legal proceedings does not generally constitute a valid explanation for delay and that the applicant had reason to inquire about his rights under the Code much earlier.

The application was dismissed as the delay was not incurred in good faith.