HRTO 2010

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

The respondent transportation company requested that the application be dismissed on the basis that it is a federally regulated business outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

Based on submissions confirming that the respondent engages in freight deliveries extending beyond Ontario into Quebec and the United States, the Tribunal found that the respondent is a federally regulated undertaking pursuant to s. 92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application against the Mon Sheong respondents due to delay.

The applicant argued that her mental health issues prevented her from filing a timely application and submitted new medical evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that the applicant failed to explain why the new evidence could not have been obtained earlier or raised at the initial hearing.

Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the medical evidence did not support her claim that she was incapable of filing an application, as she had concurrently engaged in proceedings before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The respondents requested to dismiss the human rights Application on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release.

The applicant argued the release did not cover individual employees for human rights claims.

The Tribunal found that the general release language in the agreement was sufficiently broad to encompass human rights claims against individual employees, and that proceeding with the Application would be an abuse of process.

The Application was dismissed.

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

Despite being aware of the scheduled hearing dates, the applicant failed to attend the hearing.

Her representative requested an adjournment, stating he had been unable to contact her, but provided no evidence of extraordinary circumstances.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned due to the applicant's failure to appear and provide evidence in support of her allegations.

The applicant filed a Request for Order to re-activate her human rights application, which had previously been deferred pending the conclusion of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) Appeals Branch proceeding.

Having regard to the request, the response, and the WSIB decision filed by the applicant, the Tribunal ordered the application to be re-activated.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in the denial of her specialty dental certification more than one year after the last alleged incident.

She argued the delay was justified because she was pursuing an appeal before the Health Professionals Appeal and Review Board.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that pursuing other legal avenues does not constitute a good faith reason for delay under section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code, as the applicant could have filed a timely application and requested a deferral.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment and dismissal based on disability, more than one year after his termination.

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

The applicant submitted that the delay was caused by seeking assistance from his union, an MP's office, and dealing with personal issues.

The Tribunal found that pursuing other avenues is not a valid reason for delay and that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation demonstrating good faith.

The application was dismissed as out of time.

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

The respondent failed to file a Response within the required 35-day period.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent that failure to participate could lead to orders against it without further notice.

The respondent was granted 14 days to file a Response along with an explanation for the delay.

The applicant alleged discrimination by Toronto Police Service officers during two stops.

The respondents requested dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance of the application was already dealt with through the Police Services Act complaints process and reviewed by the OCCPS.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide written submissions on the applicability of section 45.1.

The Tribunal deferred ruling on an outstanding production request pending the section 45.1 determination, and noted that the Toronto Police Association must file a formal request if it wishes to intervene.

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

The respondent failed to file a Response within the required 35 days of the Notice of Application.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent of the consequences of failing to participate under Rule 5.5 and granted the respondent 14 days to file a Response along with an explanation for the delay.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the Royal Bank of Canada.

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

The applicant did not file submissions.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that banking falls exclusively under federal jurisdiction pursuant to s. 91(15) of the Constitution Act, 1867, and is therefore outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The respondent brought a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to dismiss the human rights application on the basis that it was barred by a claims process and bar order issued in the respondent's CCAA restructuring proceedings.

The Tribunal found that it has no jurisdiction to hear a claim that is barred by a court order.

The applicant was given 30 days to advise the Tribunal of his intent to bring a motion to the Superior Court for leave to file a late claim, failing which the application may be dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination after his gym membership was terminated.

The Tribunal sought submissions on whether to defer the application because the applicant was facing criminal harassment charges involving the respondent's contact person.

Finding that the facts in the criminal proceeding overlapped with the allegations in the application, and noting potential contact restrictions, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the criminal proceedings to avoid inconsistent findings of fact.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The respondent failed to file a response within the required 35-day period.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent of the consequences of failing to participate, including the possibility of orders being made without its participation.

The Tribunal granted the respondent 14 days to file a response along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice.

The applicant, a former member of the respondent housing co-operative, alleged discrimination in housing on the basis of disability and reprisal after the respondent sought and obtained a court order for her eviction due to rent arrears.

The Tribunal found no evidence that the respondent treated the applicant differently because of a disability or failed to accommodate her, noting that the requirement to pay rent does not inherently discriminate against those financially unable to pay due to disability.

The Tribunal also held that pursuing legal rights in court does not constitute a reprisal under the Code.

The application was dismissed.

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

The respondent filed a response including a request for early dismissal, arguing the substance had been dealt with in another proceeding.

The applicant failed to file a reply or respond to the Tribunal's directions regarding the request to dismiss.

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

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code.

The original application was dismissed because the subject matter was substantially the same as a civil claim previously decided by the court.

The applicant argued that the Tribunal misapplied the Code and failed to consider intersectional discrimination.

The Tribunal found no compelling or extraordinary circumstances to warrant reconsideration, noting that the applicant's arguments were already considered and that the Tribunal does not sit in appeal of court decisions.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent corporation.

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

The applicant subsequently provided a new address for the respondent and requested to amend the application to add the respondent's contact person as an individual respondent.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision giving the respondent 14 days to file a Response and explain its delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice.

The proposed individual respondent was also given 14 days to respond to the request to add him as a party.

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

The respondents failed to file a Response by the initial deadline and subsequently missed an extended deadline requested by their Legal Department.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision granting the respondents a final 14 days to file a Response and explain the delay, warning that failure to do so could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming the allegations accepted under Rule 5.5.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, citizenship, ethnic origin, creed, and family status.

A hearing was scheduled, but neither party attended.

The Tribunal was satisfied that both parties had notice of the hearing.

Due to the non-attendance of both parties, the application was dismissed.