HRTO 2010

The respondents in a human rights application alleging disability discrimination brought preliminary requests.

The respondents sought orders compelling the applicant's litigation guardian to consent to the disclosure of the applicant's personal health information and Ontario Student Record (OSR) to assist in preparing their responses.

The Toronto District School Board (TDSB) also sought to be removed as a respondent.

The Tribunal denied the disclosure requests, finding it premature to order broad disclosure at the pleadings stage and noting it lacks jurisdiction to compel the disclosure of privileged OSR documents.

The Tribunal also denied the TDSB's request to be removed, applying the Persaud factors and finding that distinct allegations were made against the TDSB and its staff.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing on the basis of age and receipt of public assistance after his rent subsidy was revoked and he was evicted.

The respondents requested early dismissal, removal of personal respondents, and clarification of the scope of the application.

The Tribunal narrowed the scope of the application to the specific allegations of discrimination, refused to dismiss the application early, and removed the personal respondents as there were no factual allegations against them.

The respondents requested an adjournment of the scheduled Case Resolution Conference due to health issues arising from the pregnancy of a named respondent.

The applicant consented to the request.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's ill health constituted an exceptional circumstance justifying an adjournment under its scheduling policies.

The hearing was adjourned to alternative dates in June 2010.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his claim alleging his disability was a factor in his termination.

The applicant argued the decision conflicted with established case law and Tribunal procedure.

The Tribunal found no conflict with established jurisprudence, noting the employer was unaware of the applicant's medical difficulties prior to termination.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed as the applicant failed to satisfy the criteria under Rule 25.

The Tribunal considered a Request for Order During Proceedings to remove the personal respondent, a former site director, from the application.

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal noted that the corporate respondent accepted vicarious liability for the personal respondent's actions and had the ability to provide a remedy.

Furthermore, the original complaint contained no factual allegations involving the personal respondent.

Finding no compelling reason to continue the proceeding against him, the Tribunal removed the personal respondent from the style of cause.

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

The respondent made no submissions on the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

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

The respondent consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant, a tenant in social housing, alleged that female staff members of the respondent housing corporation sexually harassed him, made sexual advances, and discriminated against him on multiple grounds.

He further alleged that the respondents engaged in reprisals, including issuing a trespass notice and incorrectly calculating his rent, after he rejected the advances and complained.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence not credible, noting he misinterpreted innocuous actions as sexual advances.

The Tribunal accepted the respondents' evidence that the rent calculation error was a mistake and the trespass notice was issued due to the applicant's disruptive behaviour.

The application was dismissed.

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

Shortly before the scheduled hearing, the respondent requested an adjournment, citing a change in representation to its Executive Director due to financial costs, the need for more time to prepare, and the unavailability of two unnamed witnesses on vacation.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, finding that the reasons cited were within the respondent's control and did not constitute extraordinary circumstances.

The Tribunal also directed the respondent to immediately disclose the documents it intends to rely upon and its list of witnesses, warning of potential evidentiary consequences for non-compliance.

The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of family and marital status following her dismissal.

The respondents requested an early dismissal of the Application, arguing the applicant had signed a full and final release.

The Tribunal noted that section 43(2) of the Human Rights Code requires affording parties an opportunity to make oral submissions before finally disposing of an Application.

Accordingly, the Tribunal scheduled a one-hour conference call hearing to consider the early dismissal request.

The applicant and the corporate respondent's contact person appeared at the scheduled hearing, but the personal respondent did not.

The hearing was adjourned and the Tribunal directed the parties to make submissions on how to proceed.

Only the personal respondent provided submissions.

The Tribunal directed the applicant and the corporate respondent to provide submissions within two weeks, failing which the application may be deemed abandoned.

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

The applicant requested to consolidate the two applications.

The Tribunal noted significant factual overlap but directed the respondents to file written submissions on the consolidation request before making a final determination.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondents.

The Tribunal's initial notices were returned as undeliverable.

After obtaining a new address for the corporate respondent, the Tribunal issued another notice, but no response was filed.

The Tribunal issued this interim decision warning the corporate respondent that failure to file a response within 5 days could result in the Tribunal proceeding without them and deeming them to have accepted the allegations, pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Rules of Procedure.

The applicants filed human rights complaints alleging discrimination by the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) and its members after their request for an adjournment was denied.

The respondents argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction due to judicial immunity.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the doctrine of judicial immunity applies to statutory tribunals and their members acting in their adjudicative capacity.

The applications were dismissed as they related to the conduct of the OMB members, with the applicants given an opportunity to make submissions on any remaining allegations against OMB staff.

The respondents requested a stay of the Tribunal's previous order pending judicial review.

The Tribunal noted that the respondents had not yet exhausted internal remedies, specifically the right to request reconsideration under the Tribunal's Rules.

The Tribunal granted a temporary stay to allow the respondents to file a request for reconsideration, with the stay to be extended if the request is filed.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of race, colour, ethnic origin, place of origin, and creed, as well as reprisal for filing a human rights complaint.

The Tribunal found no evidence connecting the applicant's workplace complaints to a prohibited ground.

A single denial of religious leave was justified by insufficient notice.

The Tribunal applied section 45.1 of the Code to rely on an Employment Standards Officer's finding that the applicant was terminated for misconduct, and found no evidence that the termination was a reprisal.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging racial profiling and excessive use of force by police officers.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the application pending the outcome of a disciplinary hearing under the Police Services Act.

The Tribunal found that deferral was appropriate to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent findings of fact, as the police disciplinary hearing would address some of the factual matters raised in the application.

The application was deferred.

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

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

The Tribunal issued an interim decision noting the failure to respond and warning the respondent of the potential consequences under Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, including the possibility of the Tribunal proceeding without further notice.

The Tribunal granted the respondent 21 days to file a response along with an explanation for the delay.

In an interim decision regarding a human rights complaint against a school board, the Tribunal requested further submissions from the parties on the issue of whether the Special Education Tribunal (SET) has exclusive jurisdiction over matters relating to the identification, placement, and accommodation of students with special needs.

The adjudicator noted a recent SET decision suggesting it lacks jurisdiction over programming details when the placement itself is not in dispute, and directed the parties to provide written submissions on the implications of this decision before ruling on the preliminary jurisdictional issue.