HRTO 2010

The applicant filed two applications alleging the respondent reprised against him by denying cost of living indexing on his benefits and withholding a payment, following earlier complaints to the Human Rights Commission.

The Tribunal considered whether the second application should be dismissed as a duplicate.

Finding discrete allegations in the second application, the Tribunal struck only the overlapping portions.

The Tribunal further directed the parties to provide written submissions on whether the first application is barred by section 53(8) of the Human Rights Code due to the prior Commission complaints, and whether allegations predating 2009 are barred by delay.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondents.

Pursuant to section 45.9(2) of the Human Rights Code and on the joint request of the parties, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario issued a final order dismissing the application.

The applicant, who suffers from chronic pain, alleged that the respondent discriminated against him on the basis of disability by refusing to fund the long-term use of Demerol under the Ontario Drug Benefit program.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's policy, which restricted Demerol funding due to safety concerns, did not differentiate on the basis of disability.

The exception made for one grandparented individual was based on date and previous entitlement, not disability.

The application was dismissed.

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

The parties engaged in settlement discussions, and the applicant signed a Full and Final Release.

However, the applicant later returned the settlement cheque, claiming it was not received in a timely manner, and sought to proceed with the application.

The respondents requested early dismissal based on the signed release.

The Tribunal ordered a half-day in-person hearing to determine as a preliminary matter whether the parties reached a binding settlement under section 45.9(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed an application with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario but failed to provide accurate contact information for the respondent.

The Tribunal's interim decision was returned as 'moved/unknown'.

Despite being granted an extension to locate the respondent, the applicant did not provide an updated address.

The application was dismissed pursuant to Rule 6.6(b) of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The complainant sought to withdraw her human rights complaint against the Ministry of Children and Youth Services.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario granted leave and the complaint was withdrawn.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code alleging discrimination based on a judge's decision.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, indicating that it lacked jurisdiction to hear applications against courts and tribunals due to the doctrine of judicial immunity.

The applicant was required to file written submissions within 30 days but failed to respond.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The Ministry of Correctional Services and a non-party intervenor requested a publication ban on portions of an investigation report and minutes of settlement produced in the proceeding, citing privacy and the integrity of confidential settlements.

The Tribunal denied the requests, finding insufficient evidence to override the strong public interest in open hearings and the need for transparent decision-making.

However, the Tribunal granted a request to redact the home addresses of Ministry personnel from the exhibits due to safety concerns.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision adding St. Michael's Hospital as a respondent, noting it had not filed submissions.

However, the Hospital had received an extension and subsequently filed a response opposing the addition.

Pursuant to Rule 26.9, the Tribunal reconsidered its interim decision on its own initiative and directed the parties to file written submissions regarding the Hospital's response.

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

The respondents failed to file a Response within the required 35-day period after the Notice of Application was issued.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondents to file a Response within 10 days, along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice to them.

In an ongoing human rights application regarding accommodation in education, the Tribunal issued an interim decision on the admissibility of the applicant's proposed reply evidence.

The Tribunal allowed the applicant to provide her version of events to refute the respondents' witnesses but excluded evidence raising entirely new matters or collateral issues.

Audio recordings not previously disclosed were excluded, while late-disclosed emails were admitted.

The applicant's Request for Order seeking sanctions for alleged perjury was dismissed as premature.

The applicant alleged he was subjected to workplace harassment and terminated on the basis of his disability (ADD/depression) by his employer and supervisors.

The Tribunal found the applicant's testimony lacked credibility due to numerous inconsistencies.

The Tribunal concluded that the supervisor's conduct and the applicant's subsequent termination were related to the applicant's poor work ethic, attitude, and insubordination, rather than any disability or perceived disability.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal on the basis of disability (scent sensitivity) during her employment and in the respondent's subsequent refusal to re-hire her.

The respondent argued that the allegations relating to her employment were time-barred as she resigned 21 months before filing.

The Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the employment allegations were not part of a series of incidents culminating in the refusal to re-hire, and allowed the allegations to proceed to a hearing on the merits.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of ethnic origin and disability following his arrest by police for domestic assault.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing under Rule 19A to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found no evidence linking the police's actions to the applicant's ethnic origin or disability, noting the arrest was based on family complaints and police observations.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondents.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the application pending the completion of a related grievance proceeding.

Both the applicant and the intervenor supported deferral, and the respondents supported deferral if the matter was not dismissed.

Finding substantial overlap between the facts and human rights issues in the application and the grievance, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance process.

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

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to dismiss the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the issues were already determined in an Employment Standards Act proceeding.

As section 43(2) of the Code requires the Tribunal to afford parties an opportunity to make oral submissions before finally disposing of an application, the Tribunal scheduled a conference call hearing to consider the dismissal request.

The applicant filed an Application relating to the special diet allowance under Ontario's social assistance programs.

The Tribunal directed that the Application be treated in accordance with the 'lead case' procedure established in Ball v. Ontario (Community and Social Services), unless the parties provide compelling reasons not to do so.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission sought reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that extended the period for the respondent government to comply with an order regarding special diet benefits.

The Commission argued that the Tribunal was functus officio and lacked the power to extend the compliance period.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the doctrine of functus officio does not restrict administrative tribunals more than courts, and that the Tribunal has the power to extend time periods for compliance with ordered remedies, similar to the Supreme Court of Canada in Charter cases.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by his employer.

Concurrently, his union grieved his termination and other matters, resulting in a 'Last Chance Agreement' and Minutes of Settlement that reinstated him and required him to withdraw all outstanding human rights applications.

The applicant subsequently sought to expedite his Tribunal application, arguing the Minutes were void or contrary to the Code.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had voluntarily settled the matters and that allowing the application to proceed would violate the principle of finality and constitute an abuse of process.

The application was dismissed.

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

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the completion of two outstanding union grievances based on the same facts.

The applicant's union also requested to intervene.

The Tribunal granted the request to defer, finding significant overlap between the application and the grievances, and granted the union intervener status as the applicant's exclusive bargaining agent.