HRTO 2010

The respondent school board requested an order striking several paragraphs from the applicant's statement of additional facts in a transitional human rights application.

The respondent argued the paragraphs raised new allegations, including reprisal and Employment Standards Act violations, that were not part of the original complaint.

The Tribunal struck the paragraphs alleging reprisal and failure to cooperate in the Commission process, finding that new allegations of Code violations cannot be added to a transitional application without a formal amendment prior to the transition.

The remaining paragraphs were permitted to stand as they provided factual context or were relevant to the issue of remedy.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of sex, claiming the respondent deliberately posted a supervisory vacancy while she was on vacation, refused to consider her late application, and hired a male candidate with less experience.

Following the applicant's presentation of her case, the respondent moved to dismiss for failure to establish a prima facie case.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding no evidence that the timing of the posting was related to her sex, noting the applicant submitted her application late despite knowing about the vacancy, and observing the successful candidate had more seniority and experience in the role.

The applicant filed a request to amend the application to remove his representative and proceed in his own name, along with a request to withdraw the application.

The respondent Providence consented, and the Ministry did not respond.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend the style of cause and dismissed the application as withdrawn.

The respondent union requested an order for the production of documents and notes related to the settlement of a companion human rights complaint between the applicant and his employer.

The applicant opposed the request, citing settlement privilege.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the settlement documents were not arguably relevant to the issue of potential damages owing by the union, as the union was not a party to the settlement, there was no evident overlap in remedies, and the allegations against the union differed from those against the employer.

The Tribunal previously sought submissions on whether to defer the human rights application pending the outcome of the applicant's WSIB claim.

Both parties confirmed there were no outstanding WSIB appeals and opposed deferral.

The Tribunal found deferral inappropriate as there was no other legal proceeding pending and directed the matter to mediation.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision dismissing her human rights application for failing to rectify deficiencies.

The request was filed past the 30-day deadline.

The Tribunal granted an extension of time, noting the applicant had recently retained a representative and acted diligently thereafter.

The Tribunal also granted the reconsideration request, finding that the applicant's previous lack of legal representation and difficulties understanding the process outweighed the public interest in finality, especially since the application had not been heard on its merits.

The respondents filed a Request for Order during Proceedings seeking to dismiss the human rights application on the basis that the applicant named the wrong corporation as respondent.

The applicant alleged that the respondents refused to employ her after purchasing the dental practice where she worked because she was on maternity leave.

The Tribunal denied the respondents' request and directed them to file their Responses to the Application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that her husband was falsely arrested, incarcerated, and denied disability accommodations by the police and Crown attorneys.

The Crown attorney respondents requested dismissal based on prosecutorial immunity, while the police respondents requested deferral pending the conclusion of concurrent criminal proceedings against the applicant's husband.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the Crown attorneys, finding they are immune from such proceedings.

The Tribunal deferred the remainder of the application against the police respondents to avoid jeopardizing the ongoing criminal proceedings, which are subject to a publication ban.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that an electrical cabinet on a public walkway constituted a barrier for individuals with vision disabilities.

The applicant acknowledged he did not have a vision disability and brought the application in the public interest.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the applicant lacked standing because his own rights were not infringed and only the Ontario Human Rights Commission is statutorily empowered to initiate applications in the public interest.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment, with the last incident occurring in March 2009 when his employment ended.

The application was filed in April 2010, beyond the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss and provided the applicant an opportunity to explain the delay.

The applicant failed to provide submissions demonstrating that the delay was incurred in good faith.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, and creed.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred pending the completion of a related grievance proceeding.

Although the applicant initially consented, he later objected due to delays in the arbitration process.

The Tribunal granted the deferral request, finding that the grievance involved identical allegations and that deferral was appropriate to avoid adjudicative duplication.

The applicant alleged that her employer and its president discriminated against her on the basis of age and sex, specifically alleging sexual harassment and reprisal leading to her termination.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence regarding the alleged sexual and age-related comments to be unreliable and uncorroborated by witnesses.

The Tribunal concluded that no sexual solicitations or advances occurred, the employer had no duty to investigate as it was unaware of any allegations, and the termination was based on work performance issues rather than discriminatory factors.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability following his termination in 2003.

The respondent brought a preliminary request to dismiss the application for delay, as it was filed more than one year after the alleged discrimination.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's delay in filing the application until 2006, after his grievance arbitration was resolved unsatisfactorily, was not incurred in good faith.

The application was dismissed for delay.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the ground of disability and requested to defer the application pending the resolution of a grievance.

The respondents and the applicant's union agreed to the deferral.

The Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application pending the conclusion of the grievance arbitration process.

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

The respondents sought to dismiss the application for delay, arguing the alleged incidents occurred outside the one-year limitation period.

The Tribunal found that the incidents did not constitute a series of incidents and that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay in good faith.

The Tribunal dismissed the late allegations but allowed one timely allegation to proceed, ordering the applicant to provide further particulars.

The corporate respondent requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision finding it had discriminated against the applicant by denying him employment based on his record of offences.

The respondent argued the Tribunal incorrectly applied the law of mitigation regarding lost wages.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the respondent was essentially disagreeing with the factual findings rather than the legal principles applied, and that the applicant's efforts to mitigate were reasonable under the circumstances.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of the Tribunal's previous decisions regarding her age discrimination claim against the respondent hospital.

She argued that new evidence from a former colleague and the Tribunal's reliance on hearsay evidence warranted reconsideration.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the new evidence could have reasonably been obtained earlier and was largely irrelevant.

The Tribunal also clarified that in a circumstantial discrimination case, the respondent only needs to provide a legitimate, non-discriminatory explanation for termination, which it did through direct evidence from the decision-maker.

The applicant filed a human rights application more than one year after the last alleged incident of discrimination.

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

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice or otherwise communicate with the Tribunal.

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

The applicant filed an application alleging a contravention of settlement under s. 45.9(3) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the settlement in question resolved an application under the Labour Relations Act, 1995, not an application under s. 34 or 35 of the Code.

The Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction to enforce the settlement and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination.

The applicant's union had also filed two grievances on her behalf concerning the employer's failure to accommodate and her termination, which were referred to arbitration.

The union and the respondent both requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the outcome of the grievances.

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