HRTO 2010

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of 'record of offences' after he was forced to resign from his civilian position with the police service following criminal charges.

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

The Tribunal held that the ground of 'record of offences' under the Human Rights Code only protects individuals who have received a pardon for a criminal conviction or who have been convicted of a provincial offence.

As the applicant had not been pardoned, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment more than four years after his employment was terminated.

He argued that he retained recall rights until November 2008, which should be considered the last incident of discrimination.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was terminated for cause in August 2005 and did not retain recall rights.

As the applicant provided no reasons to conclude the delay was incurred in good faith, the application was dismissed for delay under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondent requested an order for the production of documents relating to the applicant's prior employment and pension, and an order striking certain paragraphs from the applicant's Statement of Additional Facts.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for production, finding the documents either not arguably relevant to the discrimination allegations regarding the 2006 and 2007 competitions or premature given the proposed bifurcation of the hearing.

The Tribunal granted the request to strike portions of the Statement of Additional Facts that went beyond providing background information and attempted to litigate previously excluded allegations.

The Tribunal also issued case management directions, including proposing bifurcation of the hearing into liability and remedy phases.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code regarding his termination, which was also the subject of an ongoing union grievance.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer.

The respondent employer and the union confirmed the grievance was scheduled for arbitration.

Noting the substantial overlap in facts and remedies, and the authority of grievance arbitrators to enforce human rights statutes, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging disability discrimination, which overlapped with an ongoing union grievance.

The Tribunal previously declined to defer the application because the union had placed the grievance in abeyance.

After the grievance was subsequently referred to arbitration, the respondents filed a Request for Reconsideration of the Tribunal's interim decision.

The Tribunal noted that reconsideration is only available for final decisions, but exercised its discretion under its Rules of Procedure to treat the filing as a Request for an Order During Proceedings.

The Tribunal directed the applicant and his union to file written submissions on whether the application should now be deferred.

The respondents in a human rights application brought Requests for Order seeking particulars, dismissal of certain allegations, and document disclosure.

The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's allegations of discrimination based on sex, as that ground had been removed by the Commission.

The Tribunal also dismissed specific allegations of verbal harassment and gear tampering due to a lack of particularity and failure to link the conduct to a protected ground.

Finally, the Tribunal ordered the applicant to disclose all arguably relevant documents, including medical records, within 14 days, warning that failure to comply could result in the application being dismissed as an abuse of process.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking an adjournment of the scheduled hearing due to poor health, supported by a doctor's note.

The respondent opposed the request, arguing that the applicant had already been granted a previous adjournment and that further delay would cause irreparable harm given the age of the allegations.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment based on the medical evidence but ordered the applicant to provide a further doctor's note indicating when he would be able to participate before scheduling new hearing dates.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging failure to accommodate and termination based on disability.

The respondent and the union requested that the application be deferred pending the completion of two related union grievances based on the same facts and human rights issues.

The Tribunal granted the deferral, noting the substantial overlap between the proceedings and the authority of grievance arbitrators to decide human rights claims.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in the provision of services regarding medical treatment received at St. Michael's Hospital.

The applicant subsequently brought a Request for Order to add the hospital as a respondent, noting the initial failure to name it was inadvertent.

The individual respondent consented, and the hospital did not respond.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding the hospital to be a necessary party.

The applicant requested that the Tribunal reconsider an earlier interim decision that deferred his human rights application pending the conclusion of his WSIB appeals.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, noting that its Rules of Procedure do not permit the reconsideration of interim decisions.

The applicant must wait until the WSIB proceedings conclude before requesting to reactivate the application.

The respondents in a human rights application filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking particulars, production of documents, and witness information.

The applicant provided further particulars and witness information in her response.

The respondents also sought extensive medical records, which the applicant opposed as premature.

The Tribunal declined to order production of the disputed medical records prior to the standard documentary disclosure deadlines, but directed the applicant to provide written consents for the records she had agreed to release.

The respondents requested that the human rights application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Code, arguing that the substance of the application had already been dealt with through a police complaint under the Police Services Act.

The Tribunal found that while the police complaint involved similar allegations, the specific incidents underlying the human rights application were not investigated by the police due to a discretionary refusal based on the six-month time limit.

Consequently, the substance of the application was not dealt with in the other proceeding, and the preliminary request to dismiss was rejected.

The applicant sought to add the owner of the respondent company as a personal respondent, and the respondent sought to defer the application pending a related criminal trial.

The Tribunal applied the Smyth test and added the owner as a personal respondent because his individual conduct was the central issue.

The Tribunal also deferred the application until the conclusion of the criminal proceeding against the personal respondent to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions.

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

The Tribunal scheduled a mediation, which the applicant failed to attend.

The Tribunal subsequently warned the applicant that failure to respond would result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant did not respond.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The respondent psychiatrist brought a request to defer the human rights application pending the outcome of an appeal before the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB).

The applicant had alleged discrimination and failure to accommodate regarding a missed appointment, which was also the subject of a College of Physicians and Surgeons review.

The Tribunal granted the deferral, finding it appropriate to avoid concurrent proceedings dealing with identical allegations and issues.

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

A mediation was scheduled, but the applicant failed to attend.

The Tribunal subsequently sent correspondence requiring the applicant to confirm their intentions, warning that failure to respond would result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant did not respond within the specified time.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The respondent failed to file a Response within the required 35-day period.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondent to file a Response by a specified deadline, along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal arising from comments and settlement exchanges during an OLRB mediation meeting.

The respondents requested dismissal under section 45.1 of the Code, arguing the OLRB had already dealt with the substance and raising concerns about mediation privilege.

The Tribunal scheduled a preliminary hearing by teleconference to address the mediation privilege issue and granted the applicant's union intervener status.

The applicant filed an application alleging sex discrimination in employment.

The respondents failed to file a response within the required 35-day period.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondents to file a response within 14 days, along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice and deem the respondents to have accepted the allegations.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in services, goods, and facilities based on disability.

The respondent failed to file a response within the required 35-day period.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondent to file a response within 14 days, along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice and deem the respondent to have accepted the allegations.