HRTO 2010

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing of her human rights application.

Her representative had previously sought an adjournment because he had lost contact with her, which was denied.

The respondent and intervenor attended the hearing and the respondent requested that the application be dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned, noting that applicants have a responsibility to participate in proceedings and keep their representatives informed of their whereabouts.

The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination on the basis of disability nine days after the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code had expired.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss due to delay.

The applicant submitted that the delay was incurred in good faith because he was in a six-month addiction treatment program with limited access to the outside world.

The Tribunal applied the 'plain and obvious' test and found it was not plain and obvious that the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The Tribunal directed that the application be served on the respondent, leaving the final determination on jurisdiction for a later stage.

The applicant filed a Request to proceed with her human rights application under Rule 14.3 after her complaint before the College of Physicians and Surgeons was withdrawn.

The respondent did not file any response submissions.

The Tribunal granted the request and directed the Registrar to schedule the application for a hearing.

The applicant, a former Assessor/Case Manager, alleged that his employer and manager discriminated against him on the basis of race and ethnic origin, culminating in his termination.

The applicant claimed he was subjected to psychological abuse, denied opportunities, and treated differently than a favored 'inner circle' of employees.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's termination and the manager's actions were based on legitimate work performance issues, including extraordinary tardiness and failure to maintain up-to-date client files.

The application was dismissed as the evidence did not support the allegations of discrimination or harassment.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that the respondent appeared to be federally regulated.

The applicant submitted that the respondent is a placement agency providing staffing services to the federal government, and that its activities fall under provincial jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that it was not clear and obvious at this preliminary stage that the respondent is federally regulated, and allowed the application to proceed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability following a work-related injury and subsequent layoff.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the resolution of a related WSIB proceeding.

The applicant opposed deferral, arguing the WSIB matter dealt with benefits termination rather than the alleged failure to accommodate and discriminatory layoff.

The respondent did not seek deferral.

The Tribunal found that the substance of the application was not the subject of the WSIB proceeding and declined to defer the matter.

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

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario granted leave to withdraw the complaint.

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

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario granted leave to withdraw the complaint.

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

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination based on ancestry and ethnic origin.

The respondent failed to file a response within the required 35 days.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent that failure to file a response within 14 days could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming the respondent to have accepted the allegations.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in accommodation on the basis of age, sex, and reprisal.

In an earlier interim decision, the Tribunal directed the applicant to provide submissions on whether two named personal respondents were proper parties, given the lack of allegations linking their actions to a prohibited ground.

The applicant submitted that the respondents ignored her right to peace and quiet because she is an 'old woman'.

The Tribunal held that a bald assertion of discrimination, without supporting factual allegations, is insufficient to maintain an application against a named respondent.

The two personal respondents were removed as parties.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination on the basis of race and ethnic origin, claiming she resigned due to discrimination and that the respondents interfered with a prospective employment offer.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application was filed more than one year after the last alleged incident.

The applicant submitted that the delay was incurred in good faith, as she believed she could raise these issues in her earlier, timely-filed complaint and transition application.

The Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the delay was not incurred in good faith, and directed that the application be served on the respondents to allow them to address the issue.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to employment, housing, and services.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer the application because the applicant had previously filed a complaint with the College of Physicians and Surgeons regarding the same incidents.

The Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application, finding it to be the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed given the potential for duplication of evidence and inconsistent findings of fact and law.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the corporate and personal respondents.

Shortly before the scheduled hearing, one of the personal respondents, having recently retained separate counsel, requested an adjournment to prepare a defence.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that it was made well beyond the five-day period following the notice of hearing and that late retention of counsel does not constitute an extraordinary circumstance justifying an adjournment.

The Tribunal also directed the respondents to immediately comply with their document disclosure obligations.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant merely disagreed with the original decision and failed to provide any new facts, evidence, or other factors that would satisfy the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 25 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability in employment following a workplace injury that resulted in a broken hip.

She claimed the respondent failed to accommodate her need for reduced hours, denied her a promotion, changed her compensation structure, and harassed her by monitoring her work activities.

The Tribunal found that the respondent had made genuine and ongoing efforts to accommodate the applicant, including offering a graduated return to work program and implementing ergonomic recommendations.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant failed to provide necessary medical documentation to support her need for reduced hours and that the respondent's actions were reasonable and non-discriminatory.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination after her employment was terminated following the sale of the McDonald's restaurant where she worked.

The predecessor employer advised that its assets were sold to Dendres Corporation, who subsequently sought clarification of its status.

The Tribunal directed Dendres Corporation and the parties to file submissions on whether the application can proceed against the specific restaurant location and whether Dendres Corporation should be added as a respondent, applying the factors from Smyth v. Toronto Police Services Board.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in services on the basis of disability, claiming he was denied entry to a supermarket because he uses a motorized scooter.

The respondents failed to file a Response despite multiple notices and directions from the Tribunal.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision deeming the respondents to have accepted all allegations in the application and waived their rights to further notice or participation.

The applicant was directed to file further submissions and indicate whether he wished to attend a hearing to determine liability and remedy.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in services after being detained and accused of shoplifting at a Zellers store.

The applicant also commenced a civil action for false imprisonment based on the same events.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the conclusion of the civil action, to which the applicant consented.

The Tribunal granted the request and deferred the application to avoid concurrent proceedings and the risk of inconsistent factual findings.

The respondents requested that the human rights application alleging sexual harassment during massage therapy be deferred or dismissed because the applicant had filed a complaint with the College of Massage Therapists of Ontario.

The Tribunal found that the College matter had concluded, so deferral was not appropriate.

Regarding the request to dismiss under section 45.1 of the Code, the Tribunal directed that the applicant be given an opportunity to make oral submissions before a final determination is made.