HRTO 2010

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant argued that the ground of family status should be considered and requested to amend his complaint to name his son as the applicant.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant provided no new facts or evidence, but merely attempted to re-argue his case.

The Tribunal also noted that the applicant's son was not the original complainant and could not file a transitional application.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a previous decision that dismissed his human rights application for being filed outside the one-year deadline.

The applicant argued the decision was based on wrong information and that he did not receive notice, but failed to provide new determinative evidence or show he missed the hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, noting that reconsideration is not an opportunity to reargue the case.

The respondents requested an order dismissing the human rights application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that a prior Employment Standards Act proceeding had already dealt with the substance of the application.

The respondents also sought to strike the applicant's reprisal claim because she did not check the 'Reprisal' box on her original Commission complaint form.

The Tribunal allowed the reprisal claim to proceed, finding that the factual narrative in the original complaint clearly raised the issue.

The Tribunal also dismissed the s. 45.1 request, concluding that the employment standards officer's decision did not address the duty to accommodate or discrimination under the Code.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights complaint.

He argued that the Tribunal wrongfully assessed credibility, ignored determinative facts, and that the respondents had an unfair advantage due to expert legal advice.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant failed to explain why the requested evidence could not have been obtained prior to the hearing or specify what determinative facts were ignored.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not meet any of the conditions for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

The respondent sought early dismissal of a human rights application alleging sex discrimination and harassment, arguing the substance was appropriately dealt with by a prior grievance settlement.

The Tribunal found that s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code applied to issues resolved in the grievance, but noted the applicant alleged harassment continued after the settlement.

The Tribunal directed the parties to provide written submissions identifying which allegations post-dated the settlement before making a final determination.

The corporate and personal respondents requested an order to remove the personal respondents from two related human rights applications and to name the corporate employer as the sole respondent.

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal removed most of the personal respondents, noting the corporate respondent's willingness to accept liability and the lack of allegations that the individuals acted outside their job responsibilities.

However, the Tribunal declined to remove one personal respondent from the first application due to specific allegations of personal harassment against him.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal after being removed from the workplace.

The respondent and the applicant's union indicated that a grievance based on the same facts had been referred to arbitration.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance and arbitration process, noting that grievance arbitrators have the power and responsibility to enforce human rights statutes.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on various grounds.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss against several individual respondents because the application failed to identify specific acts of discrimination committed by them.

The applicant withdrew the application against four individuals and provided details regarding three others.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the withdrawn individuals and one other whose allegations related to a non-party, allowing the application to proceed against the remaining respondents.

The applicant filed a human rights application, but the respondent failed to file a Response.

The Tribunal previously issued an Interim Decision warning the respondent that the matter could proceed without them.

Counsel for the respondent subsequently sent correspondence indicating a misunderstanding, believing the matter related to an Employment Standards Act claim.

The Tribunal granted the respondent an additional 10 days to file a Response before proceeding without further notice.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of sex and reprisal after taking maternity leave.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to withdraw the Application against Just Energy following a settlement.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to produce the release agreement to address a respondent's request for early dismissal, and directed the parties to provide submissions regarding another respondent's request to defer the Application pending an Employment Standards Act complaint.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of age and disability regarding the termination of certain benefits upon reaching age 65.

The respondent hospital and union requested that the application be deferred because a concurrent grievance had been filed on the applicant's behalf raising the same human rights issues.

The Tribunal granted the request and deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process, noting the substantial overlap in facts and issues.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of colour and sex by police officers during a stop.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed under section 34(11)(b) of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter had already been decided in a civil proceeding.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's prior civil claim, which alleged race discrimination based on the same facts, had been dismissed by the Small Claims Court after considering human rights principles.

Concluding that the issue had been finally determined by a court, the Tribunal dismissed the application as barred by the Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on ethnic origin during his arrest by the Ontario Provincial Police.

The respondent filed a Request for Order seeking early dismissal of the application due to delay, lack of a prima facie case, and lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal directed a conference call hearing to address the respondent's request and ordered the applicant to provide written submissions explaining the delay and detailing the facts supporting his claim of discrimination.

The applicant in a human rights complaint alleging employment discrimination and reprisal brought a request for an order during proceedings seeking the production of numerous financial and operational documents from the respondent university.

The respondent objected on grounds of relevance, privilege, and confidentiality under FIPPA.

The Tribunal applied the test of arguable relevance and ordered the production of several categories of documents, finding no basis for the respondent's claims of litigation privilege or FIPPA restrictions, while denying production of other documents deemed irrelevant.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment, initially requesting deferral pending the outcome of a union grievance.

After an arbitration hearing, the applicant requested the Tribunal proceed with his application.

The respondents argued for deferral, noting several outstanding grievances related to the application.

The Tribunal directed the applicant's union to provide submissions on the status of the grievances before deciding whether to defer the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application against an organizational respondent and three individual respondents.

The organizational respondent was in receivership, and the Receiver argued the proceedings were stayed under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The Tribunal previously noted it was unclear if the individual respondents received notice of the application.

The applicant requested the Tribunal direct the organizational respondent to disclose the addresses of the individual respondents.

The Tribunal directed the Receiver to advise if it would accept service for the individual respondents or to provide their current or most recent addresses.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability, family status, and marital status after the respondents attempted to evict him following the breakdown of his relationship with the landlord's sister.

The respondents requested an early dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter was already dealt with by the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB).

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that while the LTB proceedings involved the same facts, they dealt with the appropriateness of the tenancy and did not address the human rights allegations.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment against an organizational respondent and nine individuals.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the Application against five of the individual respondents because the application failed to identify specific acts of discrimination by them.

The applicant consented to dismissing the application against two individuals but provided further details regarding the other three.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the two individuals on consent and allowed it to proceed against the remaining respondents.

The applicant filed a transitional application under section 53(3) of the Human Rights Code and sought to amend it to include allegations regarding job competitions in November 2006 and April 2007.

The Tribunal permitted the addition of the November 2006 allegations, finding they were part of the subject matter of the original complaint before the Commission.

However, the Tribunal struck the April 2007 allegations because they were raised more than one year after the incident and the applicant failed to provide an explanation to establish that the delay was incurred in good faith under section 34 of the Code.

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

The Tribunal was unable to deliver the Notice of Application to the respondent at the provided address.

The Tribunal requested further contact information from the applicant and warned that failure to provide it could result in dismissal.

The applicant did not respond.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.