HRTO 2010

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal against himself and his wife.

The organizational respondent requested the removal of the individual respondent, dismissal of parts of the application due to delay, and dismissal for failing to make out a prima facie case.

The Tribunal ordered the removal of the individual respondent, noting the organizational respondent assumed responsibility for his actions.

The Tribunal also directed the parties to provide written submissions on consolidation with another pending application, delay, section 53(8) of the Code, and whether a prima facie case was established.

The applicant sought production of records relating to allegations of discrimination at a correctional facility.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario ordered the respondent to produce redacted inmate records, finding them arguably relevant to the application.

However, the Tribunal denied the production of workplace discrimination and grievance records involving staff, as the applicant failed to establish a nexus to the issues in dispute.

The Tribunal also dismissed the respondent's request to bifurcate the hearing into individual and systemic phases, concluding it would not be an efficient way to proceed.

The applicant requested an extension of an interim order previously granted by the Tribunal.

The parties had agreed to settle a related court application and have the issues determined by an arbitrator, and the respondents agreed not to oppose reasonable extensions of the injunctive relief.

The Tribunal granted the request, extending the order for 60 days with automatic 60-day renewals until the arbitrator makes a final ruling, unless opposed by either party.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex (pregnancy) against her employer, Brinks Canada Limited, and the insurance provider, Great West Life.

Brinks requested that the application against it be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, arguing it is a federally-regulated interprovincial transportation undertaking.

The Tribunal agreed, finding Brinks falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, and dismissed the application against the employer.

However, the Tribunal found it retained jurisdiction over the provincially-regulated insurance provider regarding the denial of disability benefits.

The respondents, an employer and a union, brought requests to dismiss the complainant's human rights complaints under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance of the complaints had been appropriately dealt with in other proceedings.

The Tribunal granted the union's request, finding that the Ontario Labour Relations Board had appropriately dealt with the allegations against the union in a section 74 duty of fair representation application.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the employer's request, finding that a grievance settlement between the employer and the union, which the complainant refused to sign and which did not explicitly address discrimination, did not appropriately deal with the substance of the human rights allegations against the employer.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding brought a request for an order for the production of documents over which the respondents claimed solicitor-client privilege.

The respondents argued that the documents were confidential communications between the university and its senior legal counsel.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the documents were protected by solicitor-client privilege, which is nearly absolute, and the applicant's assertion that the documents might provide further evidence was not a sufficient reason to pierce the privilege.

The applicant requested to defer his human rights application until the conclusion of his Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) claim.

The corporate respondent and the applicant's employee association consented to the request.

The Tribunal found it appropriate to defer the application pending the conclusion of the WSIB process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, family status, and marital status.

Prior to this, the applicant filed an Employment Standards Act claim based on the same factual allegations, which was appealed to the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be dismissed or deferred pending the OLRB proceeding.

The Tribunal found that deferral was appropriate to avoid duplication of evidence and inconsistent findings of fact, and ordered the application deferred pending the conclusion of the ESA proceedings.

The respondent made a Request for Order, and the applicant was directed to file full and complete written submissions in response.

The applicant failed to do so and did not respond to a subsequent letter from the Registrar warning that the application may be dismissed as abandoned.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on race, colour, and age after the respondent removed vegetation from his property.

The Tribunal previously dismissed the application as abandoned when the applicant failed to respond to a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration beyond the 30-day time limit, claiming he was overseas.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no good reason to waive the time limit as the applicant failed to act with diligence.

Furthermore, the Tribunal noted the application was barred under section 53(8) of the Human Rights Code because the applicant had previously filed a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission regarding the same subject matter.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application after he failed to attend the scheduled hearing.

The applicant claimed he was unable to attend due to 'cold like symptoms' and disagreed with the Tribunal's interim directions.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding the applicant's medical excuse highly suspect and unsupported by evidence, and noting his history of failing to attend hearings and recent declaration as a vexatious litigant.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and sex regarding her termination from employment.

She also filed a concurrent application with the OLRB alleging her union breached its duty of fair representation by failing to grieve the termination.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the human rights application pending the OLRB proceeding.

The Tribunal concluded that deferral was not appropriate because the two proceedings involved different parties, raised different issues, and offered different potential remedies.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, sex, and sexual orientation after the respondent refused to reimburse her for sex reassignment surgery performed in 2007.

The Tribunal previously determined the application was filed more than one year after the last alleged incident of discrimination and provided the applicant an opportunity to explain the delay.

The applicant failed to file any submissions regarding the reasons for the delay or whether it was incurred in good faith.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application pursuant to section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal against his employer, two individuals, and a client of his employer.

The respondents requested the removal of the personal respondents and the client, and sought to defer the application pending the outcome of a concurrent reprisal claim filed under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The Tribunal applied the Persaud framework and removed the personal respondents and the client, finding no compelling reason to keep them as parties.

The Tribunal also deferred the application, noting the significant factual overlap with the OHSA claim and the risk of inconsistent findings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, sex, and age, as well as reprisal in her employment.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant had also filed grievances under a collective agreement based on the same facts.

After the applicant informed the Tribunal that the grievances had been withdrawn and would not proceed to arbitration, the Tribunal found there was no longer any reason to defer consideration of the application.

The applicant, a teacher with multiple chemical sensitivity and other disabilities, alleged that her union and its representatives discriminated against her by failing to adequately represent her in seeking accommodation from her employer.

The respondents requested early dismissal of the application.

The Tribunal found that the union's actions, which included filing a grievance and pursuing an accommodation plan, did not constitute differential treatment or discrimination.

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

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking particulars and production of documents, and the respondents requested an adjournment of the upcoming hearing.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, noting the respondents had adequate time to prepare and failed to show exceptional circumstances.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to immediately comply with their disclosure requirements by providing arguably relevant documents, a document list, and detailed witness statements.

The applicant filed a transitional human rights application alleging discrimination by the Ministry of Community and Social Services regarding her eligibility for employment supports under the Ontario Disability Support Program.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed for missing the statutory filing deadline and for failing to disclose a Code violation.

The Tribunal relieved against the strict application of its rules, finding the application was filed on time despite technical defects.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the application on the basis that the applicant's disagreement with an independent psychiatric assessment regarding her employability did not disclose a violation of the Human Rights Code.

In an interim decision regarding a human rights application, the Tribunal addressed several requests for orders during proceedings.

The Tribunal removed a personal respondent, finding no compelling reason to continue the proceeding against her personally.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to produce arguably relevant documents.

The Tribunal denied the trade union's request to dismiss the application for lack of jurisdiction, noting the current Code does not permit dismissing an application merely because it could be pursued under another statute like the Labour Relations Act.

Finally, the Tribunal directed the applicant to advise whether he consents to removing a deceased personal respondent or to provide submissions on why the application should continue against him.

The applicant requested, on consent, to adjourn the scheduled hearing dates and convert one day to a mediation day.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, noting that it was made well beyond the five-day period after the notice of hearing and cited no exceptional circumstances.

However, the Tribunal offered to conduct a mediation-adjudication on the first scheduled hearing day if the parties agreed.