HRTO 2010

The applicant requested leave to withdraw her 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The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.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 his 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The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.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 filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code against a police officer, alleging an incident that occurred on March 17, 2008.

The applicant had previously filed a complaint with the Human Rights Commission against the Thunder Bay Police Services Board and the Chief of Police, which was transitioned to the Tribunal under section 53(5).

The Tribunal found that the new application concerned an allegation that was the same as one in the transitioned file, with the only difference being the discovery of the officer's name.

Pursuant to section 53(8) of the Code, the Tribunal dismissed the new application for lack of jurisdiction, noting that the applicant should instead request to amend the transitioned file to add the officer as a personal respondent.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and ethnic origin by OPP officers during an arrest at her home.

The respondents requested early dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance of the application had been appropriately dealt with by the Police Services Bureau (PSB) and the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services (OCCPS).

The Tribunal found that the PSB investigation and OCCPS review constituted a 'proceeding' that appropriately dealt with the substance of the human rights allegations, as the applicant had a full opportunity to participate and the OCCPS considered the allegations of discriminatory conduct.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario and its Complaints Committee co-chair in their handling of his complaints against two physicians.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance of the application had already been dealt with by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB).

The Tribunal found that the HPARB proceedings constituted another proceeding that had appropriately dealt with the substance of the application, including the allegations of discrimination.

Concluding that proceeding with the application would amount to an abuse of process, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The applicant sought to amend his human rights application to include allegations that the respondent made false statements to a WSIB claims investigator, which allegedly resulted in the denial of his WSIB benefits.

The Tribunal denied the request to amend, finding that the proposed amendment would fundamentally alter the focus of the original complaint regarding workplace harassment and termination.

Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the WSIB has exclusive jurisdiction to determine entitlement to benefits under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act.

The applicant sought to amend his human rights application to add an allegation of failure to accommodate.

The Tribunal granted the amendment in an earlier interim decision after the respondent failed to file a timely response.

The respondent subsequently requested reconsideration of the interim decision and an adjournment of the hearing.

The Tribunal declined to reconsider the decision, finding the amendment appropriate given the lack of prejudice, and directed a case conference to address the adjournment request and hearing structure.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that deducted Canada Pension Plan (CPP) disability benefits from an award for lost wages.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the original decision conflicted with established human rights jurisprudence.

The Tribunal held that benefits received from sources such as CPP are collateral to the dispute and should not be deducted from an award for lost wages under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application against her employer, a logistics company.

The respondents brought a request for an order to dismiss the application for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the employment was federally regulated.

The Tribunal found that the corporate respondent transports products across provincial boundaries using its own trucks and employees.

Consequently, the employment falls under federal jurisdiction pursuant to s. 92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

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 respondents made no submissions.

The Tribunal granted leave and the Application was withdrawn.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw her human rights application against the respondents.

The respondents made no submissions on the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

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

Following the applicant's death, the respondents requested the application be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal deferred this issue pending confirmation of the estate representative.

The Tribunal also considered whether the application was barred by section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code due to an ongoing wrongful dismissal civil action.

The Tribunal found that section 34(11) did not apply because the civil action did not allege or seek remedies for a breach of the Code.

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

The respondents made no submissions.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw their human rights application against Ryerson University and other respondents.

The respondents made no submissions on the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in the provision of services on the basis of disability, claiming he was asked to leave the respondents' store because of his service dog.

The respondents argued the applicant was asked to leave due to his aggressive and belligerent behaviour, not because of the dog.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant has a disability and relies on his dog, the evidence established he was asked to leave the store because he provoked a confrontation and behaved inappropriately.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing based on receipt of public assistance.

The respondent failed to file a Response within the 35-day deadline after the Notice of Application was delivered to his work address.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent of the consequences of failing to respond under Rule 5.5 and granting an extension to February 1, 2010 to file a Response with an explanation for the delay.

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

The respondents made no submissions on the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

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

The respondent consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

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