HRTO 2010

The applicant filed an Application alleging a contravention of settlement under section 45.9 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondents failed to file a Response within the required 14-day period.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondents to file a Response within 10 days, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice and deem the respondents to have accepted the allegations.

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 directing the respondents to file a response within 10 days, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice to them and deem them to have accepted the allegations.

The respondent requested early dismissal or deferral of a human rights application alleging discrimination in accommodation, arguing that the substance of the application was being dealt with by the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss because the LTB matter was ongoing and had not reached a conclusion.

However, given the significant overlap in subject matter and the advanced stage of the LTB proceeding, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the LTB matter.

The respondent requested the early dismissal or deferral of a human rights application alleging discrimination in accommodation, arguing that the substance of the application was being dealt with by the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code because the Landlord and Tenant Board matter was ongoing and had not reached a conclusion.

However, given the significant overlap in the issues and the advanced stage of the other proceeding, the Tribunal granted the request to defer the application pending the conclusion of the Landlord and Tenant Board matter.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging her employment was terminated because she was pregnant.

She concurrently filed a claim under the Employment Standards Act (ESA) alleging reprisal for intending to take pregnancy leave.

An Employment Standards Officer dismissed the ESA claim, finding the termination was based on economic factors and lack of experience, not pregnancy.

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

The Tribunal found that the ESA proceeding appropriately dealt with the substance of the application and applied human rights principles.

The application was dismissed.

The Tribunal reconsidered on its own initiative a previous written decision that dismissed the Application against the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care.

The adjudicator had been unaware of a prior Case Assessment Direction by another Vice-chair that directed the Ministry's request to dismiss be heard with oral submissions at the scheduled hearing.

Acknowledging that section 43(2).1 of the Code requires an opportunity for oral submissions before final disposal, the adjudicator set aside the dismissal of the Application against the Ministry so the issue could be determined at the hearing.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that the narrative appeared to fail to identify specific acts of discrimination.

After receiving submissions from the applicant, the Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the application fell outside its jurisdiction, as the allegations related to disability, family status, and reprisal.

The Tribunal directed that the application be processed and served on the respondent.

The applicant filed a request for reconsideration of a previous decision that dismissed his human rights application on the basis that the substance had already been dealt with by the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The applicant relied on Rule 25.5(c) and (d) but failed to provide any detailed reasons or representations to support his request.

The Tribunal found no basis to support the request, noting the decision was consistent with established jurisprudence and no factors outweighed the public interest in finality.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination in the provision of medical services.

The Tribunal previously dismissed the application for failing to set out a prima facie case on the grounds of race, ancestry, colour, ethnic origin, place of origin, or marital status.

On its own motion, the Tribunal reconsidered its decision after the Commission noted that the ground of disability had been added to the complaint.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's allegations regarding physical restraints and lack of proper assessment due to a perceived mental disability were sufficient to establish a prima facie case.

The applicant's request to reconsider the dismissal of the other grounds was denied.

The respondent's request for production of medical and employment records was denied as irrelevant or premature.

The applicant in a human rights complaint requested to participate in the hearing by telephone due to financial inability to travel from New Brunswick.

The respondent opposed, citing serious credibility issues that required in-person cross-examination, and requested the application be dismissed.

The Tribunal denied the applicant's request, finding that financial constraints do not justify an electronic hearing when serious credibility issues are at stake.

The applicant was ordered to confirm his in-person attendance within 20 days, failing which the application would be dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the grounds of disability and age after being denied Wheel Trans service.

She requested an interim remedy directing the respondent to provide the service pending the outcome of the application, as well as a request to expedite.

The Tribunal dismissed both requests, finding that the applicant failed to meet the significant onus of demonstrating that the balance of harm or convenience favoured granting the interim remedy, as her doctor's letter did not adequately support her factual assertions regarding the harm of being denied the service.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race and colour by the Toronto Police Service.

The respondents' counsel notified the Tribunal that the Toronto Police Service was not a properly named party.

The Tribunal directed the applicant's counsel to address the issue of properly naming the respondents, warning that failure to respond would result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond to multiple communications from the Tribunal.

Consequently, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The respondents requested an early dismissal of the applicant's human rights application, arguing it did not raise a prima facie breach of the Code and that the subject-matter had been dealt with in family and landlord-tenant proceedings.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding it premature to determine whether the employment-related discrimination allegations fell outside the Code without a hearing.

The Tribunal also found no evidence that the other proceedings had appropriately dealt with the substance of the human rights concerns.

The applicant, an undocumented immigrant, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of citizenship after being denied OHIP coverage.

She requested an interim remedy ordering the Ontario government to provide her with OHIP coverage pending the determination of her application.

The respondent argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to grant substantive interim remedies.

The Tribunal held that s. 16.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act grants it the power to make substantive interim orders.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the request for an interim remedy, finding there was considerable doubt about whether the application fell within its jurisdiction under the ground of citizenship, and noting a lack of immediate urgency that would require a remedy before addressing the jurisdictional issue.

The applicant filed a human rights application more than one year after an altercation with police.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed for delay.

The applicant argued the delay was due to lack of awareness of her rights, limited English, and depression.

The Tribunal found the applicant had actively pursued other legal avenues, including a civil claim and a public complaint, and had been explicitly advised of the one-year limitation period by the Human Rights Legal Support Centre.

The Tribunal concluded the delay was not incurred in good faith and dismissed the application.

The applicant brought a Request for Order seeking the adjudicator's recusal, alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias based on a Case Assessment Direction that restricted her communications with Tribunal staff.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding that the direction was made to ensure the orderly filing of submissions and did not demonstrate a critical stance, deference to the respondent, or a denial of procedural fairness.

The applicant filed a human rights application while a concurrent union grievance proceeding based on the same facts was ongoing.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer.

The respondent supported deferral, and the applicant did not respond.

Noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority to enforce human rights obligations, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment based on disability.

The respondent and the applicant's union requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the outcome of an ongoing WSIB internal appeal and a related grievance process.

The Tribunal found that the WSIB appeal involved overlapping factual issues regarding accommodation, making deferral appropriate.

The Tribunal deferred the application until the WSIB Appeals Officer issues a decision, but declined to defer to the grievance process due to its uncertain status.

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

The respondent argued the application should be dismissed because the applicant had signed a full and final release.

The Tribunal scheduled a telephone conference hearing to address the issue.

After failing to attend the first hearing, the applicant was warned that failure to attend the rescheduled hearing could result in dismissal.

The applicant failed to attend the second hearing or contact the Tribunal.

The application was dismissed as abandoned.

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

The school board and union argued the application was untimely and failed to establish a prima facie case.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was aware of the alleged discrimination by the school board well over a year before filing the application, and that his delay was not incurred in good faith.

The Tribunal also found that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case against the union, as there was no evidence that the union's handling of his grievance was based on discriminatory factors.

The application was dismissed.