HRTO 2010

The applicant requested a last-minute adjournment of a scheduled hearing because he had to cover hospital on-call shifts.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the scheduling conflict did not constitute the extraordinary circumstances required by the Practice Direction to grant an adjournment outside the fourteen-day period.

The applicant alleged discrimination based on colour arising from a police stop and search.

The respondent requested dismissal under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter was already dealt with through a Police Services Act complaint.

The Tribunal found that the police complaints process, which included an investigation and review by the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services, constituted another proceeding that appropriately dealt with the substance of the human rights application.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision dismissing his application alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation and marital status.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was attempting to appeal the decision and failed to satisfy the specific criteria for reconsideration under Rule 25.5.

The original decision was based on the undisputed fact that the applicant was rejected as a candidate before the decision-makers had any knowledge of his sexual orientation or marital status.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant, who was on a waiting list for social housing, alleged discrimination on the grounds of sex, race, place of origin, citizenship, and disability.

He argued that the respondent's policy of prioritizing victims of abuse discriminated against men, and that the sale of housing units to an aboriginal organization discriminated against him as a white male.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and found that prioritizing abuse victims is not sex discrimination, and the sale of units did not treat the applicant differently from others on the waiting list.

The application was dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal previously dismissed the application for abandonment, believing the applicant had failed to respond to a letter inquiring about her intentions.

It was subsequently discovered that the applicant had in fact responded by email, but the correspondence was inadvertently omitted from the file.

The Tribunal reconsidered its prior decision, set aside the dismissal, and ordered that the application continue to be processed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging workplace harassment, discrimination, and reprisal.

The respondents and the applicant's union requested that the Tribunal defer the application because the underlying facts were the subject of an ongoing union grievance.

The Tribunal found that deferral was the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed, as the grievance process was initiated prior to the application and there was a clear overlap in facts, issues, and remedies.

The application was deferred pending the conclusion of the grievance proceeding.

The respondents requested the dismissal of a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of ethnic origin and place of origin regarding the denial of funding.

The respondents argued the application was time-barred and an abuse of process.

The Tribunal found that while some earlier funding decisions were time-barred, the allegations pertaining to the termination of funding for the 2002/2003 and 2003/2004 years were filed in a timely manner or formed part of a series of incidents.

The Tribunal also rejected the argument that the application was frivolous and vexatious, noting it did not have the express statutory authority to dismiss on that basis under the amended Code, and the application did not constitute an abuse of process.

The respondents' request to dismiss the application was denied, and the Tribunal narrowed the issues for the hearing.

The respondent employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss a human rights application as an abuse of process, arguing the applicant had signed a full and final release upon termination.

The applicant, who has bipolar affective disorder, argued the release was signed under duress and without legal capacity.

The Tribunal found no duress and concluded the applicant had the legal capacity to sign the release.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the motion to dismiss because the employer ignored a letter from the applicant's psychiatrist requesting accommodation sent shortly after the termination, and because there were unresolved questions regarding the employer's knowledge of the disability and whether the release violated the Employment Standards Act by excluding disability benefits during the statutory notice period.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming a denial of accommodation upon returning to work after a back injury.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the application pending an ongoing WSIB proceeding.

Finding substantial overlap between the issues to be determined by the WSIB and the Tribunal, the Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application pending the conclusion of the WSIB proceeding.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by his union, more than 22 months after the last alleged incident.

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

The applicant argued he was unaware of his rights and feared retaliation.

The Tribunal found the delay was not incurred in good faith, noting the applicant had retained counsel during the relevant period and failed to act with due diligence.

The application was dismissed as being outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of ethnic origin, over two years after his employment was terminated.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period.

The applicant argued he was waiting for his union to pursue a grievance and had also submitted a medical certificate to the employer.

The Tribunal found the applicant provided no information to explain the 20-month delay after submitting the medical certificate, and concluded the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The application was dismissed.

In an interim decision regarding an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, the Tribunal addressed the respondents' Request for Order.

The Tribunal granted the respondents a brief extension to file pre-hearing materials and ordered the self-represented applicant to disclose relevant documents, including medical records, and provide witness statements.

The Tribunal also proposed bifurcating the hearing to deal with liability first.

Finally, the Tribunal dismissed the respondents' request to remove the personal respondent as a party, finding that his decision to terminate the applicant's employment was a central issue in the proceeding.

The applicant requested an order to consolidate two human rights applications against the respondent, defer one application pending criminal proceedings, obtain disclosure of materials from a separate application, and adjourn an upcoming hearing.

The Tribunal denied all requests.

Consolidation was denied because the events were separated by three years and lacked common issues.

Deferral was denied as the allegations did not relate to the criminal charge.

Disclosure was denied because the applicant was not a party to the other proceeding.

The adjournment was denied because the applicant had ample time to retain counsel and prepare for the hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that her union and its representative discriminated against her on the basis of age during the grievance process, which concluded with a settlement in January 2009.

The application was filed in May 2010, beyond the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and found that the application was filed out of time and that the applicant failed to establish good faith for the delay.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a request for reconsideration of a decision that dismissed his human rights application as abandoned.

The request was filed well beyond the 30-day time limit.

The applicant argued the delay was justified because the original decision letter did not explain the reconsideration process.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding it untimely and noting that the applicant could have informed himself of the Tribunal's rules.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to establish any valid grounds for reconsideration under the Rules.

The applicant, a foreign-trained physician, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario and the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care regarding the recognition of his specialist credentials.

The respondents sought to dismiss the application on preliminary grounds, arguing that the pre-2007 allegations were out of time and that the post-2007 allegations were barred by section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code due to a purported settlement of a defamation claim.

The Tribunal held that the pre-2007 allegations were untimely and did not form a 'series of incidents' with the post-2007 events.

However, the Tribunal found that section 34(11) did not bar the post-2007 allegations, as no civil proceeding had been commenced and the purported settlement did not clearly resolve the human rights claims.

The timely portions of the application were permitted to proceed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination, which was dismissed as abandoned after he failed to respond to a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

Approximately three months later, the applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration, arguing he was not informed of the option or timeframe to seek reconsideration.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding it was filed well beyond the 30-day time limit and the applicant's failure to inform himself of the Tribunal's rules did not constitute a valid reason for the delay or a basis for reconsideration.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment after being falsely accused of misconduct and terminated.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application did not allege facts connecting the mistreatment to a prohibited ground of discrimination or reprisal under the Human Rights Code.

Finding that it lacked jurisdiction to inquire into general claims of unfairness not covered by the Code, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application but failed to provide correct contact information for three of the four named individual respondents.

The Tribunal attempted to serve the application but was unsuccessful.

After the applicant failed to respond to a Notice of Requirement to Confirm Address for Delivery, the Tribunal dismissed the application against the three unserved individual respondents pursuant to Rule 6.6(b).

The applicant filed a request for reconsideration of a decision that dismissed his human rights application as abandoned.

The request was filed approximately three months after the decision, well beyond the 30-day time limit.

The applicant argued the delay was justified because the decision letter did not explain the reconsideration process.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding the delay unjustified as the applicant could have consulted the Rules, and further noted that the applicant failed to provide any valid substantive basis for reconsideration.