HRTO 2010

The applicant in a human rights complaint requested that the adjudicator recuse herself, alleging procedural unfairness and a reasonable apprehension of bias arising from a conference call.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding that her conduct in seeking clarification on issues and managing disclosure did not raise a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The adjudicator also granted the applicant's request to add a physician as a respondent, noting the hospital's position that it was not responsible for the physician's independent medical decisions, and issued procedural directions for the continuation of the hearing.

The applicant, a former employee of the respondent pension fund, filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination regarding his eligibility for retirement benefits.

The respondent sought early dismissal on the basis that the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the last alleged incident of discrimination occurred when the applicant began receiving pension benefits without retirement benefits, more than five years before the application was filed.

The Tribunal rejected the applicant's argument of a continuing contravention and found that his delay was not incurred in good faith, given his legal background and prior knowledge of the eligibility conditions.

The application was dismissed as untimely.

The complainant, who had filed a human rights complaint relating to the Special Diet Allowance, passed away.

The Tribunal's correspondence was returned, and neither the Commission nor the respondent had any record of next of kin.

After providing notice to the parties with no objections received, the Tribunal dismissed the complaint.

The applicant, a paramedic, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability after his employment was terminated by two separate employers for failing to reactivate his certification.

Prior to the application, the applicant's union grieved one of the terminations, and an arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding no prima facie case of discrimination linking his alleged disability to his failure to recertify.

The respondents requested an early dismissal of the human rights application under s. 45.1 of the Code.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the arbitrator's decision appropriately dealt with the substance of the application against both employers, and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application on behalf of her husband, alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of a mental health disability.

The complainant returned to work after a layoff but quit during his second shift, allegedly due to his disability.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no evidence that the respondent was aware or ought to have been aware of the complainant's disability at the time he quit.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability because the respondent university displayed her failed first-year law school marks on her transcript.

The applicant had previously commenced a civil action against the respondent seeking similar relief, including an injunction.

The Tribunal held that the application was barred by section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code because the civil action was commenced before the application and had not been withdrawn.

The Tribunal also found the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period under section 34(1), as the ongoing display of marks constituted a continuing effect rather than a continuing violation.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment, housing, and contracts on various grounds, including reprisal.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application failed to identify specific acts of discrimination by the named respondents (union representatives) or link the alleged unfair treatment to Code grounds.

The applicant's response alleged she was fired by a plant manager for filing applications, but the manager and employer were not named as respondents.

Finding no sufficient basis for the alleged Code violations against the named respondents, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application.

She had failed to attend the original hearing because she was found unconscious and hospitalized due to a serious medical condition.

The Tribunal found that, in these exceptional circumstances, the interest in ensuring access to justice outweighed the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.

The request for reconsideration was granted and a new hearing was ordered.

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

The respondent failed to file a Response by the required deadline.

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

The Tribunal granted the respondent an extension to November 10, 2010, to file a Response along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice.

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

After failing to respond to a Notice of Intent to Dismiss and failing to file a Reply to the respondent's submissions on jurisdiction and deferral as directed by a previous interim decision, the Tribunal directed the applicant to file written submissions within five days.

The Tribunal warned that failure to do so would result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the corporate respondent and three individuals.

One individual respondent, Craig Read, failed to file a response after being served.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing Read to file a response by November 10, 2010, warning that failure to do so could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice to him and deeming him to have accepted the allegations.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability by his former employer and union.

The respondents sought to dismiss the application as it was filed outside the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued the delay was in good faith due to a severe brain injury sustained in a motor vehicle accident and the subsequent appointment of the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee.

The Tribunal found the application was filed late and scheduled a hearing to determine whether the delay was incurred in good faith.

The applicant filed a request to reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending a related grievance proceeding.

The applicant provided evidence that the grievance was withdrawn, and the respondent did not contest the request.

The Tribunal granted the request and reactivated the application.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding requested an order for the production of names and photographs of directors and shareholders of corporate taxicab licence holders to determine their race and ethnicity.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the corporation holds the licence and does not have a race, and that looking behind the corporate structure was not warranted in these circumstances.

A separate request to correlate names and photos already received was granted on agreed terms of confidentiality.

The respondent requested that the applicant's human rights application be deferred pending the conclusion of ongoing grievance proceedings under the collective agreement.

The applicant opposed the deferral, citing dissatisfaction with his union representation.

The Tribunal found a substantial overlap between the facts and human rights issues in the application and the grievances.

Following its general practice, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the resolution of the grievances and relieved the respondent from filing a full response at this time.

The applicant filed an Application alleging a breach of settlement due to the late payment of settlement monies.

A teleconference hearing was scheduled for November 1, 2010.

The applicant failed to dial into the conference call within half an hour of the scheduled start time.

In accordance with the Tribunal's standard practice, the Application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed an application alleging harassment on the basis of family status and reprisal in employment.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application because the applicant had filed a parallel unlawful reprisal application with the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) dealing with identical allegations.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the subject matter was substantially similar and deferral would avoid adjudicative duplication, noting that the OLRB has the power to apply the Human Rights Code.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing, citing short notice and a scheduling conflict with another legal proceeding.

The Tribunal noted that the hearing date had been set months in advance, despite a typographical error in the initial notice that was subsequently corrected.

The applicant failed to provide details about the alleged scheduling conflict despite being asked to do so.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, finding the reasons provided were not compelling and the request was made late.

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

The application was previously deferred pending the completion of a related grievance proceeding.

The applicant subsequently filed a request to reactivate the application, providing evidence that the grievance had been withdrawn.

As the respondent did not contest the request and the grievance was withdrawn, the Tribunal granted the request and reactivated the application.

The respondents requested the early dismissal of an application alleging discrimination on the basis of marital status and reprisal, arguing it did not establish a prima facie case.

The respondents also sought to remove the personal respondents from the proceeding.

The Tribunal denied the request for early dismissal, finding that an oral hearing was required under section 43(2) of the Human Rights Code and that the reprisal allegations made a preliminary determination difficult.

However, the Tribunal granted the request to remove the personal respondents, as the corporate respondent accepted liability for their actions and there was no compelling reason to keep them in the proceeding.