HRTO 2010

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and race after being refused a hotel room.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the application, arguing the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's evidence, which included her Aboriginal ancestry and the hotel clerk's incorrect assumption that she was intoxicated, was sufficient to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.

The respondent's motion to dismiss was denied, and the matter was directed to proceed to a hearing on the respondent's evidence.

The applicant sought an order to change the name of the respondent employer to the company that purchased its assets during CCAA restructuring.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the purchaser was a separate legal entity that did not assume the respondent's liabilities.

Furthermore, the Tribunal dismissed the application entirely because it was commenced in violation of a Superior Court order staying proceedings against the respondent under the CCAA.

The respondents requested orders to remove two individual respondents and to defer the human rights application pending an Identification Placement and Review Committee proceeding.

The Tribunal applied the Persaud factors and removed one individual respondent whose alleged conduct related solely to her employment role, but declined to remove the other whose personal behaviour was impugned.

The request for deferral was dismissed as the respondents failed to identify any specific proceeding currently underway.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming the respondents failed to accommodate her following a workplace injury.

The respondents requested an early dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) had already appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the WSIB's return-to-work process did not address the procedural and substantive duty to accommodate up to the point of undue hardship as required by the Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex and sexual harassment.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred because the subject matter was also the subject of an ongoing grievance.

The Tribunal noted its general practice of deferring applications where there is an ongoing grievance under a collective agreement based on the same facts and human rights issues.

The Tribunal granted the request and deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on multiple grounds, claiming the respondent police and neighbourhood girls planted micro-chips in his head and spied on him.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the narrative failed to identify specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code.

The applicant's subsequent submissions did not explain how the alleged mistreatment related to a Code ground.

The application was dismissed as it did not raise matters within the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on multiple grounds, making incomprehensible allegations about micro-chips and internet spying.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the narrative failed to identify specific acts of discrimination related to a Code ground.

After receiving the applicant's submissions, the Tribunal found no connection between the alleged unfairness and any protected ground, and dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed human rights complaints against his former employer, TRW, and his union, alleging discrimination on the basis of disability regarding his termination and the union's failure to grieve it.

The respondents sought early dismissal.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the union, finding no factual foundation that its decision not to grieve was discriminatory.

The Tribunal also removed all personal respondents from both applications.

The application against TRW was permitted to proceed on the merits, but limited to the termination and events occurring within one year prior, as earlier allegations were out of time.

The applicant filed an application with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario and later advised that he was negotiating a resolution with the respondent.

The Tribunal requested an update on the status of the application and warned that failure to respond could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant failed to respond by the deadline.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

A preliminary hearing was scheduled to address the respondent's requests for dismissal or deferral.

The applicant failed to appear at the hearing despite receiving proper notice.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed as abandoned.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting that applicants have a responsibility to participate in proceedings and attend scheduled hearings.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed human rights applications against the City of Toronto and the Ministry of Community and Social Services regarding the denial of Ontario Works benefits.

The Tribunal previously sought submissions on whether to defer the applications pending the conclusion of the applicant's appeals before the Social Benefits Tribunal (SBT), which raised the same human rights issues.

As no submissions were received, the Tribunal ordered the applications deferred pending the completion of the SBT proceedings to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions.

The respondent requested to consolidate two human rights applications filed by spouses alleging race and sex discrimination in employment.

The applicants opposed consolidation, arguing the evidence would be different.

The Tribunal applied the Persaud factors and ordered the applications to be heard together, finding common facts, issues, and witnesses, and no prejudice to the parties.

The applicants' request for documentary disclosure was denied as premature.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging workplace harassment, discrimination, and reprisal.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed because an internal employer investigation had dealt with the substance of the application, or alternatively deferred pending a related union grievance proceeding.

The Tribunal held that an internal investigation is not a 'proceeding' under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code and denied the request to dismiss.

However, the Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application pending the conclusion of the grievance proceeding to avoid duplication and inconsistent findings.

The applicant requested to reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of criminal proceedings against him for criminally harassing one of the personal respondents.

The criminal proceedings concluded with the applicant entering into a peace bond.

The respondents opposed reactivation, arguing the matter was finally determined by the criminal court and should be dismissed under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal granted the request to reactivate, finding that the criminal proceeding had concluded and there was no longer a basis for deferral.

The Tribunal noted that the respondents' arguments for dismissal should be raised in a separate request, and cautioned the applicant regarding the need to establish a prima facie case of discrimination and the potential for the application to be considered an abuse of process.

The applicants and the corporate respondent participated in a joint mediation where all parties requested that the two applications be heard together, as they arise from the same employment situation and involve the same respondents.

The Tribunal granted the request pursuant to Rule 1.7(d) of the Tribunal Rules of Procedure, finding it fair, just, and expeditious to hear the applications together.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing based on disability, seeking to keep a dog in her condominium unit despite a no-pet rule.

The respondent requested early dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter was already decided in a prior condominium arbitration.

The Tribunal found that the arbitrator had considered the Code and the applicant's medical evidence, concluding there was no violation.

The Tribunal held that the applicant could not re-litigate the issue by presenting new medical evidence she chose to withhold during the arbitration.

The application was dismissed.

The complainant sought to withdraw her human rights complaint on consent.

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

The Ontario Human Rights Commission decided to refer a human rights complaint to the Tribunal in December 2008 but failed to communicate this decision to the Tribunal until April 2010 due to an administrative oversight.

Under the transitional provisions of the amended Human Rights Code, the Commission's authority to refer complaints expired on December 31, 2008.

The Tribunal held that a referral under section 36 of the old Code requires not only a decision to refer but also communication of that decision to the Tribunal.

Because the referral was not communicated before the statutory deadline, the Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the complaint.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of the Tribunal's decision to defer his human rights application pending the completion of a parallel civil proceeding.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, holding that a decision to defer is an exercise of discretionary power, is not determinative of the merits, and is not a final decision.

Therefore, it is not open to reconsideration under the Tribunal's rules.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination in the provision of health services by the respondent hospital.

The respondent requested early dismissal of the application, arguing it was not liable for the actions of individual medical practitioners.

The Tribunal declined to determine the liability issue at a preliminary stage, noting that a full response is generally required to assess the facts and legal relationships involved.

The respondent was directed to file a complete response.