HRTO 2010

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

Following an interim decision that dismissed part of the application as untimely, the applicant was directed to provide particulars for the remaining allegations.

The applicant failed to file the required particulars by the deadline and did not respond to subsequent correspondence.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had abandoned the application and dismissed it.

The applicant union and respondent city consented to place the human rights application in abeyance.

The Tribunal ordered that no further steps be taken for up to one year, after which the application may be dismissed as abandoned if neither party communicates with the Tribunal.

The applicant, a casual security officer, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, ethnic origin, age, and reprisal.

The respondents requested the Application be dismissed for failing to establish a prima facie case.

The Tribunal found no prima facie case regarding age and ethnic origin, as the applicant failed to allege facts connecting the respondents' actions to these grounds.

However, the Tribunal found a prima facie case regarding disability and reprisal, noting the supervisor's awareness of the applicant's disability and the negative employer decisions following the applicant's human rights complaint.

The request to dismiss was allowed in part.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment on the basis of a mental disability by her employer.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant had an ongoing grievance based on the same facts.

The respondent supported deferral, while the applicant opposed it due to financial hardship.

The Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application pending the conclusion of the grievance process, noting that the Grievance Settlement Board has the authority to interpret and apply the Code.

The applicant filed six applications with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

In a previous interim decision, the Tribunal stated it would take no further steps for one year unless contacted by a party, and that the applications could be dismissed as withdrawn if no communication was received.

As no party communicated with the Tribunal by the deadline, the applications were dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination.

The applicant's union requested to intervene, noting it had filed several grievances on behalf of the applicant arising from the same facts.

The respondents requested the application be deferred pending the resolution of the grievances.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene and ordered the deferral of the application, finding significant overlap in the subject matter and remedies sought between the application and the outstanding grievances.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application on the basis that he had signed a Release.

The applicant based his request on a telephone call made during the original hearing, in which the corporate respondent's representative claimed to possess a document showing the applicant was not barred from pursuing the application against the personal respondent.

The Tribunal denied the reconsideration request, finding that it provided no new facts or evidence and failed to meet any of the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, specifically that he was terminated while on disability leave.

Following an unsuccessful mediation, the applicant requested an order to amend his application to include allegations of harassment based on incidents already mentioned in the pleadings.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting that no hearing had been scheduled, the amendments related to previously mentioned incidents, and the respondent demonstrated no actual prejudice.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, specifically regarding her return to work program and a failure to accommodate.

The respondent and the applicant's union requested that the Tribunal defer the application because the allegations were identical to those in an ongoing grievance and a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) appeal.

The Tribunal found significant overlap in the subject matter and ordered the deferral of the application pending the conclusion of the grievance and WSIAT appeal.

The respondent school board requested an order defining the scope of the applicant's human rights application and dismissing several allegations as untimely.

The applicant alleged workplace discrimination and reprisal, including racial stereotyping by an individual respondent.

The Tribunal found that allegations from 2003 and 2004 were untimely, as there was a significant gap between them and later incidents, breaking any 'series of incidents' under section 34 of the Code.

The Tribunal allowed the timely allegations from March 2006 onwards to proceed, provided they fell within the scope of the original complaint.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by her physician based on race, ancestry, ethnic origin, and disability.

She had previously filed an identical complaint with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the conclusion of the College proceeding.

The Tribunal granted the deferral, finding it to be the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed, as the College complaint was filed first, was at a more advanced stage, and involved identical allegations, raising the potential for duplication and inconsistent findings.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination by his union based on race, colour, and ethnic origin.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to consider the respondents' request to dismiss the application for delay and failure to make out a prima facie case.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's allegations from 1997 and 1999 were untimely and that the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The Tribunal also found that the timely allegations regarding a threat at a union meeting and the denial of a political donation did not establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the Code.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

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

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation, with her sister advising she was hospitalized.

The Tribunal subsequently directed the applicant to explain her absence and indicate whether she wished to reschedule.

After the applicant failed to respond to multiple communications, including a formal notice warning that the file would be closed, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the Ontario Association of Architects, alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sexual orientation and age.

He claimed the Association was responsible because its individual members failed to hire him.

The respondent requested a summary dismissal.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing under Rule 19A and found that the Association, as a professional regulatory body, is not responsible for securing employment for its members or for the hiring decisions of individual architectural firms.

The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings arguing that the applicant's human rights application was untimely and improperly expanded the scope of the original complaint to include reprisal, disability harassment, and failure to accommodate.

The Tribunal found that the application was filed within the required timeframe relative to the last alleged incident, but directed the parties to provide further submissions on whether the earlier incidents constituted a series or were out of time.

The Tribunal permitted the failure to accommodate and some harassment allegations to proceed, as they were grounded in the original complaint, but excluded the reprisal allegations.

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

The respondents requested that the application be deferred pending the resolution of an ongoing union grievance dealing with the same facts and issues.

The applicant's union also requested intervenor status.

The Tribunal granted the deferral to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions, and granted the union's request to intervene.

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

The applicant recently informed the Tribunal that she would undergo a significant medical procedure imminently.

Given this extraordinary circumstance, the Tribunal adjourned the scheduled hearing dates and directed the applicant to contact the Registrar when she is able to participate, no later than March 31, 2011.

The applicant alleged that her employer failed to properly respond to her complaints of sexual harassment by a co-worker, that her union discriminated against her in its representation, and that her subsequent termination was a reprisal for enforcing her human rights.

At the conclusion of the applicant's evidence, the respondents brought a non-suit motion.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case.

The evidence showed the employer took reasonable steps to investigate and address the harassment complaints, the union provided appropriate representation, and the termination was due to the applicant's failure to provide medical documentation for an unauthorized leave of absence, not reprisal.

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

The respondent requested an early dismissal under section 45.1, arguing another proceeding had dealt with the substance of the application.

A hearing was scheduled to consider the request, but the applicant failed to attend.

Pursuant to Rule 3.13 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that his union discriminated against him by failing to pursue a grievance regarding alleged workplace and home harassment.

The union requested that the application be dismissed for delay and for failing to establish a prima facie case.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish a credible factual basis for the allegation that the union's decision not to pursue his grievance was based on discriminatory considerations.

The application was dismissed for failing to establish a prima facie case.