HRTO 2010

The applicant, a 44-year-old member of a pension plan, alleged age discrimination because the plan only permitted members who were 60 years of age with 20 years of service to retire with an unreduced pension.

The respondents sought to dismiss the application under section 25(2.1) of the Human Rights Code, which exempts pension plans that comply with the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and found that the pension plan complied with the applicable legislation.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded there was no reasonable prospect of success and dismissed the application.

The respondent brought a Request for Order During Proceeding to strike portions of the applicant's Reply, arguing they repeated the Application or addressed matters not raised in the Response.

The Tribunal declined to strike paragraphs that merely clarified the applicant's allegations.

However, the Tribunal struck several paragraphs that raised independent causes of action, alleged matters outside the applicant's knowledge, or sought to significantly amend the damages claimed without a proper request.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination and reprisal on the basis of record of offences and association with a person identified by a Code ground.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting the application failed to describe how the respondent's behaviour related to the protected grounds.

The applicant was directed to provide written submissions on jurisdiction but failed to respond.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of record of offences.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting that the respondent appeared to be a federally regulated business and that the application failed to describe how the behaviour related to the ground of record of offences.

The applicant was directed to provide written submissions but failed to respond.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

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

Due to uncertainty over whether the matter fell under federal or provincial jurisdiction, the applicant also filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC).

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the CHRC's jurisdictional determination.

The Tribunal granted the request and deferred the application to avoid the possibility of concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions on the jurisdictional issue.

The applicant filed an application alleging age discrimination in employment.

Following a previous interim decision directing the applicant to provide written submissions explaining her delay in filing and addressing a potential release, the applicant provided confusing and incomplete materials.

The Tribunal considered whether to declare the application abandoned.

Recognizing the applicant's difficulty in providing clear written submissions, the Tribunal declined to declare the application abandoned and instead directed that a teleconference be scheduled to allow the applicant to present her evidence and submissions orally.

The applicant, a child, filed an application under section 53(5) of the Human Rights Code.

The parties agreed to anonymize the names of the applicant and her litigation guardian.

The respondents further requested that their names be anonymized to protect the applicant's identity.

The Tribunal granted the request in part, anonymizing the personal respondent's name but declining to anonymize the organizational respondent, a large metropolitan school board, as it would not reasonably identify the applicant.

The Tribunal also directed that past decisions be amended to reflect the anonymization.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in contracts on the basis of race and colour more than one year after the last incident.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requesting written submissions on whether the application should be dismissed for delay or because of an ongoing Small Claims Court action.

The applicant failed to provide submissions explaining the delay.

The Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction to proceed as there was no evidence the delay was incurred in good faith, and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by his employer, his union, and the WSIB.

The WSIB requested that the application against it be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the applicant was essentially challenging a benefits decision.

After the applicant failed to provide submissions explaining why the application against the WSIB should not be dismissed, the Tribunal found there were no allegations of discrimination against the WSIB and dismissed it as a party.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of record of offences.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, directing the applicant to provide written submissions on how the respondent's behaviour related to the ground of record of offences.

The applicant failed to respond within the specified timeline.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination in employment based on race, sexual orientation, and record of offences, as well as reprisal, after an employment agency refused his job application.

The Application lacked particulars connecting the refusal to the protected grounds.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, and the applicant subsequently agreed via email that the matter was not within the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The Application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the grounds of race, colour, and sex.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing despite receiving proper notice.

The respondents attended with their witnesses.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned pursuant to Rule 3.13 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondents requested the dismissal of a human rights application under ss. 34(11) and 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that prior criminal proceedings against the applicant for criminal harassment dealt with the matter.

The Tribunal dismissed these requests, noting that criminal proceedings do not determine Code infringements.

The respondents' request to dismiss for no prima facie case and abuse of process was deferred to the hearing.

The applicant requested a postponement until his peace bond prohibiting contact with one of the respondents expired.

The Tribunal granted a short delay, directing that mediation be scheduled after the peace bond's expiration.

The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of a decision dismissing his application for failing to attend a conference call.

The applicant noted he had previously requested the call be rescheduled, but the request was missed due to an administrative error by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal reconsidered its decision on its own initiative under Rule 26.9, set aside the dismissal, and directed that a new conference call be scheduled to hear the merits of the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal in housing.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the allegations were already dealt with in multiple Landlord and Tenant Board proceedings.

The Tribunal initially considered deferring the matter due to pending criminal charges against the applicant, but declined to do so after the charges were withdrawn.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to comply with rules regarding delivery of documents before scheduling a conference call to hear submissions on the respondents' request to dismiss.

The applicant filed an application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code alleging discrimination in employment.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting the application failed to identify any specific act of discrimination within the meaning of the Code.

The applicant was given 30 days to file submissions but failed to do so.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her application alleging sex discrimination in the university promotion process.

She argued there was new evidence, factual and legal errors, conflict with established law, and issues of public importance.

The Tribunal found that the proposed new evidence was either not determinative or could have been obtained earlier, and that her other arguments were attempts to re-argue the case or unsupported allegations of bias.

The respondent's request for a confidentiality order regarding the applicant's online postings was also dismissed, as the Tribunal lacked continuing jurisdiction.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant requested that the Tribunal proceed with his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of his grievances under a collective agreement.

The applicant cited a lack of confidence in the grievance process and his union.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no reasons to depart from its usual practice of deferring applications to avoid duplication of proceedings when a grievance is outstanding.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging the respondent failed to provide a harassment-free workplace.

The facts of the application were also the subject of an ongoing union grievance scheduled for arbitration.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer.

The respondent supported deferral, while the applicant and union did not provide submissions.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process, noting the substantial overlap in facts and human rights issues and the authority of grievance arbitrators to enforce human rights obligations.

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

The respondents sought early dismissal of the application because the applicant had previously signed a full and final release.

The applicant argued the release was signed under economic duress after he was confronted with video surveillance showing him working while on WSIB benefits.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was not subjected to illegitimate pressure and had freely entered into the agreement.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.