HRTO 2010

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming the respondent failed to accommodate her medical condition.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed on the basis that a full and final release had been signed, relying on Rule 8.2(a) to avoid filing a complete Response.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene and directed the respondent to file a complete Response, finding that significant factual disagreements regarding the settlement required a full record.

A preliminary hearing was ordered to determine whether the application should be dismissed as an abuse of process or under section 45.1 of the Code.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment based on a record of offences.

However, the application indicated he had not been discriminated against because of a record of offences under federal or provincial law, and the narrative was essentially a wrongful dismissal claim.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to provide written submissions in response.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed human rights applications against the City of Toronto and Walmer Flats Property Management.

While the City of Toronto filed a response, Walmer failed to do so despite being granted an extension of time.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning Walmer of the consequences of failing to respond under Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

Walmer was granted a final 10 days to file a response and explain the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice and deem the allegations accepted.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code against the corporate and personal respondents.

One personal respondent failed to file a Response by the deadline.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the corporate respondent to forward the decision to the non-responding party and granting that party 10 days to file a Response with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice.

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

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation and subsequently failed to respond to a Tribunal notice warning that the application would be deemed abandoned.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed an application alleging a breach of a settlement reached in an earlier human rights application.

The Tribunal noted that one of the personal respondents was not a party to the settlement and directed the applicant to provide submissions on whether he intended to continue the application against that respondent.

The Tribunal also noted that the other respondents had failed to file a Response and directed them to do so within seven days, warning that failure to respond could result in the Tribunal proceeding without their participation.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination based on reprisal or threats of reprisal in the workplace.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide written submissions explaining how the respondent's behaviour related to claiming or enforcing a right under the Human Rights Code.

Finding that the applicant's submissions described general workplace disputes without alleging any Code-protected grounds or reprisal for enforcing Code rights, the Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of family status after being dismissed from her part-time employment.

The application was filed more than one year after her dismissal.

The respondent requested early dismissal on the basis of delay.

The Tribunal found that the limitation period began on the date of dismissal, not the date her subsequent grievance was denied.

As the applicant failed to provide a good faith explanation for the delay, the application was dismissed pursuant to section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination, harassment, and reprisal in the context of her employment.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the facts of the application were also the subject of an ongoing grievance proceeding.

The applicant opposed deferral, arguing the grievance was at an early stage and the Tribunal could award broader public interest remedies.

The Tribunal deferred the application, finding that the grievance process was the most appropriate forum to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions, noting that grievance arbitrators have the ability to implement and enforce human rights obligations.

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

The applicant had also grieved the termination of her employment under a collective agreement.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the conclusion of the grievance proceeding.

Despite the applicant's objections, the Tribunal deferred the application, finding that the grievance process dealt with substantially similar facts and issues, and that grievance arbitrators have the ability to enforce human rights obligations.

The applicant, a student identified with a developmental disability, alleged discrimination regarding his special education placement.

The respondent school board requested the application be dismissed, arguing the Special Education Tribunal (SET) had exclusive jurisdiction.

As the applicant's parents had appealed the placement to the SET, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario deferred the application pending the completion of the SET process, noting the SET would deal with the same issues.

The applicant requested to be identified by his initials in the proceeding to protect the identity of his minor son, who is a student with the respondent school board.

The Tribunal granted the request pursuant to Rule 3.11.1 of its Rules of Procedure, amending the style of cause for both the current and a previous interim decision.

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

The respondent sought early dismissal on the basis that the allegations had been the subject of previous OHRC complaints and union grievances.

The Tribunal dismissed the portions of the application that overlapped with the prior OHRC complaint under s. 53(8) of the Code, and the portions that had been resolved through grievance settlements under s. 45.1.

The Tribunal permitted the applicant to amend the application to include a new allegation of reprisal.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The respondents failed to file a Response within the required 35 days.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondents to file a Response within 10 days, along with an explanation for the delay.

The Tribunal warned that failure to do so may result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming the respondents to have accepted the allegations.

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

The Tribunal sent multiple notices advising that the application was incomplete and appeared to be outside its jurisdiction, directing the applicant to provide missing information and submissions.

The applicant failed to respond to the notices.

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

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code against a corporate respondent and two personal respondents.

While the corporate respondent and one personal respondent filed a Response, the second personal respondent failed to do so.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the non-responding party to file a Response within 10 days, warning that failure to comply could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming the allegations accepted pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant filed an application alleging age discrimination in employment.

Various requests for orders were filed by the parties, including requests to amend the application, for production, to remove individual respondents, and to dismiss portions of the application.

The Tribunal granted intervenor status to the applicant's bargaining agent on consent.

The Tribunal scheduled an in-person case management hearing to address the remaining outstanding requests.

The respondent union sought reconsideration of an interim decision that denied its request for early dismissal of the applicant's human rights complaint.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, holding that under Rule 26.1, only final decisions are subject to reconsideration.

Because a decision under section 45.1 is an exercise of discretionary procedural power and not determinative of the merits, it is not a final decision and cannot be reconsidered.

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

The personal respondent requested early dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that his acquittal on criminal charges arising from the same facts appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The corporate respondent supported the request, arguing abuse of process.

The Tribunal denied the request, holding that a criminal acquittal is not determinative of civil or human rights liability and does not bar a subsequent application on the same facts.

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

Two of the corporate respondents, Brute Manufacturing Limited and Bangor Metal Corp., failed to file a Response despite a previous Tribunal direction.

The former CEO indicated the companies were insolvent but provided no evidence of formal insolvency proceedings.

The Tribunal deemed the non-responding companies to have waived their rights to participate and ordered the application to proceed without further notice to them.