HRTO 2010

The applicant filed a Request to Proceed with her human rights application after a related grievance concluded.

The respondents did not oppose the request but filed a Request for Order seeking to dismiss the application as an abuse of process, arguing the matters were resolved by Minutes of Settlement.

The Tribunal granted the Request to Proceed and directed the Registrar to schedule a conference call to hear submissions on the respondents' request for dismissal.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment against a Vice-chair of the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The allegations stemmed from the respondent's decision to continue hearing a duty of fair representation application despite the applicant's request for a postponement.

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

Applying the doctrine of judicial immunity, the Tribunal held that it lacked authority to inquire into the content of an adjudicative decision made by an independent, neutral arbiter.

The application was dismissed.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer pending the conclusion of an appeal before the Social Benefits Tribunal (SBT) dealing with the same human rights issues.

Submissions supporting deferral were received from the province and one individual respondent, while the applicant provided no submissions.

The Tribunal deferred the application to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions, noting the SBT has jurisdiction to hear the human rights issues.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in the receipt of services on the basis of disability against the Landlord and Tenant Board and one of its members.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

Applying the doctrine of judicial immunity, the Tribunal found that the allegations concerned rulings made by members of the Board in the exercise of their adjudicative functions.

As such, the decisions fell outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction and the application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application that overlapped with an ongoing union grievance proceeding.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the completion of the grievance process.

Neither party made submissions opposing the deferral.

The Tribunal deferred the application, noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority and responsibility to enforce human rights statutes, and the orderly administration of justice favours deferral to concurrent proceedings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discriminatory service by the respondent's dental and administrative staff.

The respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to dismiss the application for delay, as it was filed outside the one-year time limit under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

Following an unsuccessful mediation, the Tribunal issued an interim decision scheduling a conference call hearing to determine whether the delay was incurred in good faith and without substantial prejudice to the respondent.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled summary hearing, citing a recent hospitalization.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's medical issue constituted exceptional circumstances warranting an adjournment.

However, the Tribunal denied the applicant's request to adjourn the matter to August 2011, instead directing the parties to provide available dates in February 2011 to avoid excessive delay and prejudice to the respondents.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for January 6, 2011, citing outstanding production issues that were held in abeyance pending a decision on the scope of the application.

The respondent objected to the adjournment.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that the potential prejudice to the applicant in proceeding without resolving the production issues outweighed any prejudice to the respondent from a short delay.

The applicant filed an Application for Contravention of Settlement alleging the respondents breached a Memorandum of Settlement by paying the second settlement instalment eight days late and providing an unsatisfactory apology letter.

The Tribunal found that while the late payment constituted a breach, the respondent had provided advance notice and fulfilled the payment shortly after.

The Tribunal concluded that the apology provided did not breach the settlement terms and that no harm arose from the brief payment delay to justify a remedial order under section 45.9(8) of the Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application over two years after the underlying events.

The respondents requested early dismissal on the basis of delay and section 53(8) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that section 53(8) did not bar the application because a prior complaint had never been formally 'filed' with the Commission.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the application because it was filed beyond the one-year limitation period and the applicant failed to establish that the delay was incurred in good faith, noting a lack of due diligence in pursuing the claim despite communications from the Commission.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal attempted to deliver the Notice of Application to the respondent by regular mail, but it was returned as undeliverable.

After a second attempt with a new address also failed, the Tribunal issued an interim decision.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide a current, complete, and accurate address for the respondent within 20 days, along with an explanation of the steps taken to verify the address, in accordance with Rule 6.6 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant filed an Application for Contravention of Settlement alleging the respondent breached minutes of settlement by failing to mail settlement monies by the agreed-upon date.

The Tribunal found that the respondent mailed the payment three days late.

However, the Tribunal concluded that this minor delay constituted a de minimis breach of the settlement.

The application was dismissed, and no remedy was awarded.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of place of origin and disability in medical services, claiming the respondent physician refused to treat her, incorrectly completed disability forms, and made discriminatory comments about fibromyalgia.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

Finding conflicting positions that raised credibility issues regarding the termination of the doctor-patient relationship, the Tribunal declined to dismiss the application and directed the matter to mediation.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceeding to amend the Application to increase the general damages sought to $30,000.

The respondent consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request and amended the Application accordingly.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the facts of the application were part of an ongoing union grievance.

The applicant opposed deferral, arguing the respondent might delay the grievance arbitration.

The respondent supported deferral, noting the grievances were scheduled to be heard imminently.

The Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application pending the conclusion of the arbitration process, finding that concurrent proceedings would be inefficient and risk inconsistent decisions.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondents.

The respondents failed to file a response by the required deadline.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision noting the failure to respond and warning the respondents of the consequences under Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondents were granted a final 10-day extension to file their response and explain the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application on the basis of judicial or quasi-judicial immunity.

The applicant argued that the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence and that statutory provisions displaced the common law doctrine of judicial immunity.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was attempting to re-argue his case and that the statutory provisions did not displace judicial immunity.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

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 directing the respondent to file a Response within 10 days, warning that failure to do so could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming the respondent to have accepted the allegations.

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

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation session and subsequently failed to respond to a Tribunal letter requiring him to advise of his intentions regarding the application.

As a result, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed an Application for Contravention of Settlement alleging the respondent condominium corporation breached several terms of a settlement agreement resolving a previous human rights complaint.

The respondent conceded it was four months late in modifying rooftop stairs and failed to provide timely written confirmation of other completed terms, but denied breaching the confidentiality clause.

The Tribunal found the respondent breached the agreement through these minor delays but dismissed the confidentiality claim.

The Tribunal awarded the applicant $1,000 in monetary compensation for the adverse effect on his legitimate expectations and the feelings of being ignored, noting the breaches were not fundamental but still warranted a remedy.