HRTO 2010

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on sex and marital status.

The Tribunal issued a notice of intent to dismiss, noting the application appeared to be filed outside the one-year limitation period and lacked specific allegations regarding marital status.

The applicant was directed to provide written submissions on jurisdiction but failed to respond.

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

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

The Tribunal wrote to the applicant noting potential jurisdictional issues and requiring a response within 30 days, warning that failure to respond could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race and ethnic origin, nearly eight years after her employment was terminated.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application was filed beyond the one-year limitation period under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued the delay was due to her ignorance of her legal rights and being in a state of shock.

The Tribunal found that ignorance of the law without a reason for failing to make inquiries does not constitute good faith under section 34(2).

The application was dismissed as the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction.

The applicant filed human rights complaints against York EMS, York Police, and the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care regarding the response to injuries he sustained at a New Year's Eve party.

The Ministry requested dismissal of the Application against it, arguing it does not employ paramedics or provide direct medical care.

The Tribunal found no factual or legal foundation to support the allegations against the Ministry and dismissed the Application against it for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal also converted the upcoming hearing into a preliminary hearing to address whether the remaining Applications should be dismissed because their substance was dealt with in other proceedings or for failure to set out a prima facie case.

The applicant requested to consolidate his transitional application under section 53(5) of the Human Rights Code with a newly filed application under section 34.

The respondent objected, noting they had not yet been served with the new application.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that consolidation would necessitate cancelling the upcoming hearing date and that the allegations in the two applications were unconnected.

The applicant, a Convention refugee from Iran, applied to the Ontario College of Teachers for a Certificate of Qualification.

The College refused to evaluate his application because he could not provide original transcripts sent directly from the issuing institutions in Iran, a requirement he could not meet due to his refugee status and fear of endangering his family.

The Tribunal found that the College's strict adherence to this requirement, without accommodating the applicant's circumstances, constituted discrimination on the basis of place of origin.

The Tribunal awarded $10,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, but denied the claim for lost wages because the applicant did not meet other mandatory certification requirements, such as holding a post-secondary degree and proving language proficiency.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by his neighbours, one of whom is a police officer.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred pending the outcome of a related police complaint review by the Ontario Civilian Police Commission and a criminal Peace Bond application involving the same parties and overlapping facts.

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

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal scheduled a mediation, which the applicant failed to attend without notice.

The Tribunal subsequently directed the applicant to confirm her intentions regarding the application, warning 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.

In an interim decision regarding a human rights application alleging disability discrimination and failure to accommodate by the NHL, the Tribunal ruled on evidentiary and production issues.

The Tribunal excluded the proposed testimony of two former officials regarding the NHL's general culture around injury reporting, finding it irrelevant, tantamount to character evidence, and not qualifying as similar fact evidence.

The Tribunal permitted another witness to testify by teleconference.

Finally, the Tribunal denied the applicant's request for broad document production concerning other officials' injuries, grievances, and promotions, concluding the documents were not relevant to the specific allegations of discrimination.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by the university and campus police.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision narrowing the scope of the application to the social area of services and specific prohibited grounds, finding no nexus to employment, contracts, creed, or age.

The Tribunal also directed the parties to provide written submissions on whether the application should be dismissed for delay or deferred pending concurrent civil and criminal proceedings.

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

Prior to filing the application, the applicant commenced a civil action in the Superior Court of Justice against the corporate respondent, alleging wrongful dismissal and failure to accommodate his disability.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed pursuant to section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, which prevents duplicate proceedings.

The Tribunal found that the civil action raised the same facts and issues as the application and sought remedies for the same alleged Code infringements.

Consequently, the application was barred by section 34(11) and dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application against her former manager and employer.

After the employer was removed as a party, the applicant was required to locate and serve the individual respondent.

Despite being granted multiple extensions over nearly a year, the applicant was unable to provide a valid address or prove that the respondent was evading service.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it could not proceed without notice to the respondent.

In an interim decision, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario addressed procedural issues regarding party contact information.

The individual respondent, who had not filed a Response, was given a final two-week deadline to do so, failing which the Tribunal would proceed without further notice under Rule 5.5.

The applicant, who wished to keep his new mailing address private from the respondents, was directed to provide an alternative address for service within two weeks to ensure proper communication between the parties.

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

The respondent employer requested that the application be deferred pending the completion of concurrent union grievance proceedings based on identical facts.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that the respondents failed to accommodate his disability.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to delay.

The Tribunal found that the central allegation of failure to accommodate occurred in 1997, well outside the one-year time limit under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal held that subsequent refusals to accommodate were continuing effects of the original decision, not a series of incidents.

The Tribunal also found that the applicant did not provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, and therefore the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application for lack of jurisdiction.

The original decision found that the applicant's employment did not have a sufficient connection to Ontario, as her employer's place of business, her residence, and her usual place of employment were outside the province.

In her reconsideration request, the applicant argued that the corporate respondents had ties to Ontario.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant failed to explain how her request met the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5, and that even if her factual assertions were true, they would not be sufficient to establish jurisdiction.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application for lack of jurisdiction.

The original decision found that the applicant's employment did not have a sufficient connection to Ontario, as her employer's place of business and her usual place of employment were outside the province.

In her reconsideration request, the applicant argued that the corporate respondents had significant ties to Ontario.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant failed to explain how her request met the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5 and was merely attempting to reargue her case.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application for lack of jurisdiction.

The original decision found that the applicant's employment lacked a sufficient connection to Ontario, as she resided and worked outside the province.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that the applicant failed to explain how her request met the criteria under Rule 26.5 and merely attempted to reargue her case.

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

The parties engaged in settlement discussions and the applicant signed a release, but later returned the respondents' settlement cheque because it was not received by her specified deadline.

The respondents requested early dismissal of the application on the basis of the signed release.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision ordering the respondents to file a complete Response and directing both parties to provide written submissions on whether a binding settlement was reached under section 45.9(1) of the Human Rights Code.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, advising that the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction and inviting written submissions.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice within the required timeframe.

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