HRTO 2010

In an interim decision, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario removed the union and several personal respondents from the application.

The Tribunal had previously directed the applicant to file written submissions explaining why the application should not be dismissed against these respondents in light of a related decision.

Because the applicant failed to file any submissions, the Tribunal ordered their removal and amended the style of cause accordingly.

The Tribunal previously directed the applicant to file written submissions explaining why the application should not be dismissed against certain personal respondents and the Association in light of a related decision.

The applicant failed to file any submissions by the extended deadline.

Consequently, the Tribunal ordered the removal of the Association and several personal respondents from the application.

The applicant failed to file submissions explaining why the application should continue against several personal respondents and the Association, as directed by a previous Case Assessment Direction.

Consequently, the Tribunal ordered the removal of the Toronto Professional Fire Fighters’ Association, Local 3888, and several individuals as respondents to the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application against her employer and an individual respondent.

The union, as the certified bargaining agent, requested intervenor status, which was granted.

The respondents and the union requested that the application be deferred because the facts were part of an ongoing grievance.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process, noting the substantial overlap between the application and the grievance.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in services on the basis of race and sex.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because it appeared the application failed to identify specific acts of discrimination connected to Code grounds.

The applicant did not respond to the Notice.

The Tribunal held that it was not plain and obvious that the application fell outside its jurisdiction, and directed that the application be served on the respondent.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex and sexual harassment against an organizational respondent and three individual respondents.

The Tribunal addressed two preliminary requests: a request by respondents' counsel to be removed as solicitor of record for one individual respondent due to a breakdown in the solicitor/client relationship, and a request regarding whether another individual respondent should be removed as a party.

The Tribunal granted the request to remove the solicitor of record.

The Tribunal found it unnecessary to reinstate the individual respondent as he had never been formally removed, and declined to remove him on its own initiative.

The applicant, an international medical graduate, alleged that her failure to successfully complete a twelve-week assessment verification process (AVP) at Queens University was due to discrimination based on race, place of origin, age, and family status.

The respondent maintained that the applicant failed due to significant deficits in her clinical skills, despite receiving extensive support and supervision.

The Tribunal found no evidence to support the allegations of discrimination, concluding that the respondent's explanation regarding the applicant's skill deficits was more consistent with the preponderance of probabilities.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a Black male, alleged that he was stopped, handcuffed, and searched by Peel Regional Police officers because of his race.

The officers testified that the applicant was stopped for failing to display a front licence plate, and was subsequently arrested and searched after they observed a cigarillo, a small plastic bag, and smelled marijuana.

The adjudicator found the applicant was not a credible witness due to inconsistencies in his evidence.

The adjudicator accepted the officers' evidence, concluding that the stop and search were based on reasonable grounds and that race played no role in the officers' actions.

The human rights application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application alleging contravention of a settlement but failed to provide current contact information for the respondents.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide the required information and warned that failure to do so could result in dismissal.

The applicant did not respond to the Tribunal's directions.

Consequently, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

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

The respondent failed to file a response by the deadline, though counsel for its insurer sought clarification on the respondent's identity.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent of the consequences of failing to participate under Rule 5.5 of the Rules of Procedure.

The respondent was granted 10 days to file a response and explain the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, naming only her former manager as a respondent.

The Tribunal proposed adding the employer clinic, Mount Dennis Medical Group (MDMG), as a respondent.

MDMG objected, arguing the manager acted outside her authority in terminating the applicant.

Applying the three-part test from Smyth, the Tribunal found it arguable that MDMG could be vicariously liable under section 46.3 of the Code for the manager's actions.

The Tribunal ordered MDMG added as a respondent.

The respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to consolidate two human rights applications arising from the applicants' employment and termination as building superintendents.

The applicants consented to the consolidation.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding a strong public interest in consolidating the applications, and directed the matters to mediation.

The respondent requested an order dismissing the human rights application due to the applicant's failure to disclose documents by the Tribunal's deadline.

The applicant responded that he did not intend to rely on any further documents.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the failure to produce documents did not justify dismissing the application at this stage and that the respondent was not prejudiced.

The hearing was ordered to proceed as scheduled.

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

After the applicant's counsel withdrew representation, no parties attended the scheduled mediation.

The Tribunal issued a notice directing the applicant to advise of her intentions, warning that failure to respond would result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond within the specified time.

The Tribunal found the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability (gambling addiction).

The respondents requested early dismissal under section 45.1 of the Code, arguing that a Board of Referees decision denying regular Employment Insurance benefits due to misconduct appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding the EI proceeding did not assess the human rights issues, such as the duty to accommodate.

The Tribunal granted the respondents' request to remove the six personal respondents, as the organizational respondent assumed liability and no compelling reason existed to continue against the individuals.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, directing the applicant to provide submissions.

The applicant failed to provide submissions within the required 30-day period.

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

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

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation session and did not communicate with the Tribunal to explain the absence.

The Tribunal subsequently wrote to the applicant advising that failure to respond would be deemed an abandonment of the application.

The applicant did not respond.

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

The respondents requested the removal of two personal respondents from a human rights application alleging failure to accommodate a disability.

The Tribunal applied the Persaud factors and found that the applicant made specific allegations relating directly to the personal conduct and decisions of both individuals regarding her accommodation request.

The Tribunal concluded that these allegations formed a central part of the proceeding and provided a compelling reason to continue the application against them personally.

The request for removal was denied.

The applicant requested to defer her Application until her Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) claim was completed.

The respondents and the union did not file submissions in response.

The Tribunal found it appropriate to defer consideration of the Application until the WSIB process concluded and ordered the deferral.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination and reprisal against an organizational respondent and an individual respondent.

The notice of application mailed to the individual respondent at the organization's address was returned, and the organization confirmed he was no longer employed there.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the applicant to provide a current address for the individual respondent within 20 days, or to request an order requiring the organizational respondent to provide his last known address, failing which the Tribunal would not deal with the application in respect of him.