HRTO 2010

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

In a previous interim decision, the Tribunal directed the applicant to explain why it had jurisdiction over the respondent Union.

The Tribunal found that the application contained no allegations of discrimination against the Union, and therefore there was no basis to find the Union infringed the Code.

The Tribunal ordered that the Union be removed as a respondent.

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

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation session and did not respond to subsequent correspondence from the Tribunal inquiring about his intentions.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

In an interim decision, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario addressed the respondent's late disclosure of highly relevant documents on the morning of the hearing.

Although the adjudicator found the respondent failed to exercise due diligence, the documents were admitted to ensure a fair and just resolution on the merits, as there was no evidence of fabrication or deliberate concealment.

An adjournment was granted on consent due to the late disclosure.

The Tribunal also ordered the bifurcation of the hearing into liability and remedy phases and issued case management directions requiring the parties to file complete statements of evidence in advance of the next hearing dates.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual harassment.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant's union had filed a grievance based on the same facts.

The respondents supported deferral, noting the Grievance Settlement Board's authority to apply the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal deferred the application to avoid concurrent proceedings and the risk of inconsistent decisions.

The applicant alleged her employment with the Consulate General of Barbados and Invest Barbados was terminated due to pregnancy.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed, arguing they were immune from the Tribunal's jurisdiction under the State Immunity Act.

The Tribunal found that the Act applies to statutory tribunals and that the respondents qualify as a foreign state and an agency of a foreign state.

The Tribunal further held that the commercial activity exception did not apply, as the operation and management of a consulate are sovereign acts.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The complainant in a human rights proceeding requested an order for the production of a police officer's entire memo books from 2000 to 2004, alleging the officer scripted his notes.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting the notebooks contained personal information about unrelated incidents and individuals.

The Tribunal directed the officer to bring the notebooks to the hearing, where the complainant could cross-examine him and the Tribunal could review them if necessary.

The Tribunal also addressed the respondent's concerns regarding the complainant's compliance with prior disclosure directions.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that an internal employer investigation had appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, applying established jurisprudence that an internal employer process does not constitute a 'proceeding' within the meaning of section 45.1.

The application was directed to be scheduled for a hearing on the merits.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceeding to amend his transitional human rights application to include new allegations of discrimination that post-dated his original complaint.

The respondents consented to the request.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that under sections 53(5) and 53(8) of the Human Rights Code, transitional applications must be based on the subject matter of the original complaint filed with the Commission.

The Tribunal held that adding the new allegations was not necessary for the fair, just, and expeditious resolution of the original application, noting the applicant could file a new application under section 34 for the subsequent events.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code but failed to attend a scheduled mediation.

The Tribunal attempted to contact the applicant by mail and email, warning that failure to respond would result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant did not respond and failed to update his contact information as required by Rule 1.13 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

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

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights applications under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The original decision found that the substance of her applications had been appropriately dealt with through grievance settlements signed in 2006 and 2008.

The applicant argued that the grievance proceedings did not properly address her human rights allegations, that she signed the settlements under duress, and that the adjudicator failed to consider a medical report.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the applicant was attempting to re-argue her case, that the duress argument had already been addressed, and that the medical report had been admitted but was not determinative.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the hearing until May or June 2011 due to medical issues, specifically sleep apnea and chronic depression, as well as work-related concerns.

The respondent objected to a delay beyond mid-April 2011, citing prejudice from the passage of time and scheduling conflicts for its witnesses.

The Tribunal found that the medical evidence supported an adjournment to mid-April 2011 and that further delay for work or preparation reasons was unjustified.

The hearing was adjourned to mid-April 2011.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability.

After the first day of the hearing, the applicant's counsel withdrew.

The applicant failed to file a required written statement of evidence and failed to appear at the continued hearing dates.

Despite attempts by the Tribunal to contact the applicant and obtain a written explanation for his absence, no adequate explanation was provided.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss regarding two named respondents, the Fire Chief and his superior, as the application contained no specific allegations against them.

The applicant submitted they were responsible as superiors.

The Tribunal found that the application against these individuals did not fall within its jurisdiction as there were no specific allegations of Code violations against them, and ordered them removed as respondents.

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

One respondent, PSCC No. 766, failed to file a response within the required timeframe.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the non-responding party to file a response within 10 days, along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice.

In an application alleging discrimination in the denial of a promotion to Associate Professor, both parties made requests for the production of documents.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to produce unredacted Annual Reports and promotion dossiers for faculty members who applied for similar promotions within a five-year period, as well as information regarding prior discrimination complaints against the personal respondents or relating to similar promotion denials.

The Tribunal denied the applicant's request for exit surveys and broader statistical data.

The respondents' request for documents relating to the applicant's subsequent employment and achievements was dismissed as not arguably relevant to the liability phase of the bifurcated proceeding.

The applicant, a long-term employee, alleged that his employer discriminated against him on the basis of family status and multiple disabilities, failed to accommodate him, and ultimately terminated his employment due to his disabilities.

The respondents maintained that the applicant was terminated because he could not adapt to a modernized work environment and due to concerns about his work ethic and integrity.

The Tribunal found no evidence that the applicant was treated differently due to his family status or disabilities, nor that the employer failed to accommodate any medically supported restrictions.

The Tribunal concluded that the termination was based on legitimate performance and integrity concerns, not on any Code-protected ground, and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed an application alleging sex discrimination and sexual harassment in employment.

The respondents failed to file a response, and a Trustee in Bankruptcy subsequently notified the Tribunal that both the corporate and personal respondents had declared bankruptcy.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision noting that section 69 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act generally stays proceedings against bankrupt respondents.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide submissions within 14 days on whether the application can proceed or is stayed.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the grounds of sex, sexual orientation, and association.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the respondents, a radio station and broadcasting company, appeared to be federally regulated.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that both the regulation and content of radio broadcasts fall within exclusive federal jurisdiction under section 92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1867, and therefore the matter is outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability regarding his treatment as a volunteer firefighter following a training injury.

The applicant repeatedly failed to comply with the Tribunal's Rules regarding document disclosure and failed to respond to a Tribunal order requiring compliance.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned and as an abuse of process due to the applicant's repeated failure to make disclosure and comply with Tribunal orders.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment, including improper layoff and failure to investigate a harassment complaint.

The applicant had also filed three related grievances through her union which were referred to arbitration.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application.

The respondents and the union supported deferral.

Finding substantial overlap between the grievances and the application, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process.