HRTO 2010

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of citizenship and place of origin.

The respondents requested early dismissal on the basis that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction and the application was untimely.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's complaint was essentially a dispute over a verbal contract for services provided in the Middle East, with no factual nexus linking the alleged unfair treatment to a prohibited ground of discrimination.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant, a pilot, filed an application alleging age discrimination in employment against the respondent airline and two individuals.

The Tribunal sought submissions on whether it had jurisdiction, as the respondent appeared to be a federally regulated business.

The applicant failed to provide submissions on jurisdiction.

The Tribunal determined that the organizational respondent is an airline and therefore a federal work, undertaking, or business under the Canada Labour Code.

Consequently, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction over the matter and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sex discrimination in employment following a suspension.

The respondent employer requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the matter had been appropriately dealt with through a grievance process.

The Tribunal found that the union had unilaterally withdrawn the grievance without prejudice, and the substance of the human rights allegations was never dealt with.

The respondent's request to dismiss the application was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming a failure to accommodate.

The respondents and the applicant's union requested that the application be deferred because the accommodation issue was already being addressed through a joint worker re-entry team and an ongoing union grievance.

The Tribunal found it appropriate to defer the application pending the completion of the grievance process, noting the substantial overlap in facts and human rights issues.

The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of a decision that dismissed his human rights application as abandoned after he failed to attend a hearing.

The applicant claimed he did not receive notice of the proceeding.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the parties to provide written submissions on the reconsideration request.

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled hearing before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, citing medical reasons at the last minute.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision requiring the applicant to provide a medical note confirming his inability to attend and explaining the late notice.

The applicant provided a note that merely repeated his own statements and did not address the Tribunal's specific questions.

Consequently, the Tribunal found the applicant failed to show exceptional circumstances justifying his non-attendance and dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in services based on disability, marital status, association, and reprisal, along with a Request to Expedite Proceedings.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss questioning jurisdiction.

After reviewing the applicant's submissions explaining that she was dismissed from her studies partly due to attendance affected by caring for her spouse who has multiple sclerosis, the Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the matter fell outside its jurisdiction.

The Tribunal denied the Request to Expedite, finding that the applicant's alleged financial hardship regarding student loan repayment did not constitute urgent circumstances.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer the applicant's human rights application alleging disability discrimination pending the outcome of her claim under the Employment Standards Act (ESA).

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the ESA process would only address whether the applicant's three-day absence was improperly considered in her termination, not the broader allegations of failure to accommodate and disability discrimination.

The Tribunal concluded that deferral was not appropriate given the limited factual overlap and the potential for significant delay if the ESA decision were appealed.

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

The applicant subsequently filed a Request to Withdraw the Application in relation to two of the respondents.

As no responses to the request were filed, the Tribunal granted the request pursuant to Rule 10.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, withdrawing the application against the two respondents without terms.

The applicant submitted a Request for Order During Proceedings to re-activate his human rights application, which had been deferred to allow him to pursue an alternate remedy.

He also sought to amend the application to increase the damages claimed.

The respondent did not object to the re-activation.

The Tribunal granted the request, re-activated the application, allowed the amendment, and directed the respondent to file a full Response.

The applicant filed a human rights application arising from comments allegedly made during a mediation that settled a motor vehicle accident lawsuit.

The respondent mediator requested early dismissal, arguing he had judicial immunity under section 82 of the Courts of Justice Act based on the Agreement to Mediate.

The other respondents, who were the applicant's representatives at the mediation, requested to amend their Response to seek early dismissal based on settlement documents.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend the Response and directed the parties to provide written submissions on the issue of judicial immunity.