HRTO 2010

The respondents in a human rights application requested an extension of time to file their Response and an order for the applicant to produce certain documents prior to filing.

The Tribunal denied the request for early document production, finding the respondents did not need the documents to respond to the factual allegations in the Application.

However, noting a personal tragedy suffered by the personal respondent, the Tribunal granted a 14-day extension of time to file the Response.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, claiming she requires school bussing services for her children due to her own disability.

The respondent school board filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to dismiss the application for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that transportation services are provided to students, not parents.

The Tribunal deferred the request and ordered a half-day conference call hearing to hear submissions on whether the respondent provides 'services' to the applicant within the meaning of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability when the respondent failed to return her to work despite medical clearance.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because the applicant's union had filed a grievance based on the same facts and issues.

The union also requested intervenor status.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene and deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process, noting the substantial overlap between the proceedings and the concurrent jurisdiction of grievance arbitrators over human rights issues.

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's directions within the specified two-week timeframe.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of record of offences, specifically concerning security screening and application forms used by the respondent.

The respondent questioned whether the applicant had a 'record of offences' within the meaning of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the applicant to provide submissions on whether he has a 'record of offences' as defined in section 10 of the Code, failing which the application may be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction or abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging that a Toronto Transit Commission bus driver discriminated against him based on race and colour by refusing a valid transfer.

Following the disclosure of the driver's name, the applicant brought a request to add the driver, Mark Gray, as a personal respondent.

The Tribunal applied the factors for adding a party and found that the allegations of direct, differential treatment based on race constituted compelling circumstances to add the driver personally.

The request was granted.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw her human rights application pursuant to Rule 10 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondents made no submissions on the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The Tribunal sent the applicant a letter advising that failure to respond to directions within two weeks would result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant did not respond within the specified time.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's directions within the specified two-week period.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's directions within the specified two-week timeframe.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's directions within the specified two-week timeframe.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceeding to dismiss the human rights application.

The Tribunal had previously directed the applicant to confirm in writing whether he wished to pursue the application.

The applicant did not respond, though his father attempted to act as his litigation guardian.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not wish to continue the application and dismissed it.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and reprisal, and subsequently filed a Request to Expedite the application.

The applicant argued that his former employer was filling his position, he could not obtain references, and he was suffering financial and emotional harm.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the circumstances did not meet the high threshold of being truly urgent to warrant an expedited process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that the respondent police service and staff sergeant discriminated against him based on a perceived disability (paranoid schizophrenia) by refusing to investigate his complaint of mischief against a former classmate.

The Tribunal found that the respondents' refusal to investigate the 16-year-old, unsupported allegation was based on the complaint lacking merit and being a waste of time, rather than any perceived disability.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment on the basis of sex (pregnancy) and other grounds.

The applicant brought a request to add her former supervisor as a personal respondent.

The corporate respondent opposed the request, arguing it would assume liability for the supervisor's conduct.

The Tribunal granted the request to add the supervisor as a personal respondent, noting that her conduct was a central issue and that the Human Rights Code's vicarious liability provisions do not apply to harassment.

The Tribunal also addressed the corporate respondent's counsel ceasing to represent another personal respondent.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination.

The respondents raised preliminary issues, including whether the WSIB provided a 'service' under section 1 of the Code and whether a WSIB proceeding appropriately dealt with the substance of the application under section 45.1.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision scheduling a telephone conference call to hear submissions on these preliminary issues.

The respondents requested the early dismissal of an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex, age, and reprisal.

The respondents argued the application was frivolous, vexatious, or commenced in bad faith under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, and that criminal proceedings had appropriately dealt with the substance of the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal denied the requests, finding it lacked the power to dismiss under the SPPA without a specific rule, and that the criminal proceedings had either not dealt with the substance of the human rights allegations or were still ongoing.

The Tribunal directed the parties to provide submissions on whether the application should be deferred pending the outcome of the ongoing criminal proceedings against the applicant.

The respondent requested early dismissal of the human rights application, arguing that an Employment Standards proceeding had appropriately dealt with its substance.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the Employment Standards Officer's decision only addressed unpaid wages and termination pay, and did not consider the reasons for termination or the alleged human rights issues.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment and requested to expedite the proceedings.

The corporate respondent subsequently entered bankruptcy, ceased operations, and failed to file a response.

The Tribunal denied the request to expedite as there was no longer a position for the applicant to return to.

The Tribunal ordered that the matter proceed without further notice to the corporate respondent due to its bankruptcy, and directed the applicant to confirm her intention to proceed or face abandonment of her application.

The applicant filed human rights complaints alleging discrimination in housing accommodation on the basis of disability and reprisal.

The respondents requested reconsideration of an earlier Interim Decision, seeking to introduce a Parking Agreement they inadvertently omitted, which they argued settled the accommodation issues.

The Tribunal granted the reconsideration request, allowing the respondents to make oral submissions on the effect of the Parking Agreement at the outset of the hearing.

The Tribunal also granted the respondents' request to remove four personal respondents from the applications, finding no compelling reason to continue the proceedings against them as the corporate respondents assumed responsibility for their actions.