HRTO 2010

The applicant filed a human rights application against Canada Post Corporation.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction, and directed the applicant to provide submissions within 30 days.

The applicant failed to respond within the required time.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, ethnic origin, and creed, as well as reprisal.

The respondents sought early dismissal of the application, arguing it was filed outside the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal denied the request for early dismissal, finding that the applicant had raised allegations of ongoing discrimination that could constitute a series of incidents, which required a full evidentiary hearing to resolve.

The Tribunal also directed the applicant to take steps to serve one of the individual respondents who had retired and could not be located.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of a perceived mental disability after his employer sent him home and required him to obtain medical clearance from his psychiatrist before returning to work.

The Tribunal found that the employer had a justified basis for concern given the applicant's sudden change in behaviour, which mirrored symptoms from a previous mental health leave.

The Tribunal held that the employer did not violate the Human Rights Code, as it reasonably required medical clarification of the applicant's fitness to work and accommodated him by providing full pay pending the assessment.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to be filed outside the one-year time limit and did not raise a ground of discrimination against all respondents.

The applicant failed to provide submissions.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the employer for delay, finding no evidence of good faith, and against the WSIB for failing to raise any allegations within its jurisdiction.

The application was permitted to proceed against the union, as it was not plain and obvious that it was barred.

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

The Tribunal attempted to contact the applicant's representative on multiple occasions for a status update, warning that failure to respond would result in the application being deemed abandoned.

Neither the applicant nor their representative responded by the deadline.

Pursuant to Rule 5.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled teleconference for medical reasons and asked the Tribunal to appoint a mediator to attempt an amicable settlement.

The respondents consented to the adjournment and agreed to mediation, provided it be held in person.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment and directed the registrar to schedule an in-person mediation.

The applicant sought an adjournment of the scheduled hearing on the basis that he did not receive the Notice of Hearing and required more time to prepare.

The respondent opposed the adjournment, citing business interruptions and potential witness unavailability.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, noting concerns about whether the applicant received appropriate notice, and directed that the hearing be rescheduled for September 2010 or later.

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

The Tribunal previously requested submissions on whether the application should be deferred pending the conclusion of a related grievance and arbitration procedure.

As both parties and the union agreed to the deferral, the Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application pending the conclusion of the grievance arbitration process.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application following a Case Resolution Conference.

She argued there were new facts regarding the accuracy of time sheets and that the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence, citing the suspension of her early childhood care certificate and the Psychologist Act.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the time sheet evidence could have been raised earlier and would not change the determinative findings, the certificate status was irrelevant, and the applicant was improperly attempting to reargue her case.

The request did not satisfy the criteria under Rule 25.5.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in goods, services, and facilities on the basis of disability against her former physician and solicitor, relating to events from 1976.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss due to the 35-year delay.

The applicant argued she was unaware of her rights and misled about reopening her case.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to demonstrate the delay was incurred in good faith under s. 34(2) of the Human Rights Code and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and workplace bullying leading to her termination.

The respondents requested early dismissal of the application, arguing the applicant had signed a full and final release.

The applicant claimed the release was invalid and submitted in error due to miscommunication with her counsel.

The Tribunal scheduled a teleconference hearing to address the respondents' request for early dismissal, noting that the Code requires an opportunity for oral submissions before making a final determination.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in employment, claiming the respondent failed to accommodate her and forced her resignation.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code because the applicant had commenced a civil action for constructive dismissal based on the same facts, or alternatively, that the application be deferred.

The Tribunal found that section 34(11) did not apply because the civil claim did not explicitly seek damages for a Code violation.

However, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the civil proceeding due to the significant factual overlap between the two matters.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal and discrimination related to his request for medical leave and subsequent termination.

The respondent sought early dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance of the application was appropriately dealt with by an Employment Standards Act officer who found the applicant was terminated for cause.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision providing the applicant an opportunity to make oral submissions on the dismissal request before making a final determination.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code and requested that it be deferred pending the completion of a related union grievance proceeding.

The organizational respondent and the applicant's union agreed to the deferral, noting the grievance addressed substantially the same subject matter.

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

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

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release.

A telephone conference hearing was scheduled to address this issue, but the applicant failed to attend.

The applicant later advised that he was unable to connect to the conference.

The Tribunal scheduled a second telephone conference hearing to address the respondent's request for dismissal, warning that failure to attend could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondents.

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

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondents that failure to participate could lead to orders against them without their participation, and granted them a final extension to file a Response along with an explanation for the delay.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that her union and its chief steward engaged in a reprisal against her by failing to support her workplace harassment claims after she filed a separate human rights application against her employer.

The respondents requested an early dismissal of the application.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of reprisal, as there was no reasonable basis to infer that the union's alleged inaction was intended to retaliate against her for filing an application against her employer.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination and harassment.

The respondents filed a Request for an Order during Proceedings seeking particulars and an extension of time to file their Response.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, noting that its rules require respondents to file a complete response prior to making preliminary objections, except in limited circumstances not present here.

The respondents were directed to file a complete Response within 21 days.

The respondent requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision, alleging that the decision exceeded a 'maximum standard award' for general damages, that there was an apprehension of bias, and that there were factual errors in the decision.

The Tribunal found that the decision did not conflict with established jurisprudence, there was no reasonable apprehension of bias, and the factual errors pointed out by the respondent were not determinative of the case.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability following the termination of her contract as an American Sign Language consultant.

The respondents requested early dismissal of the application on the basis that it was filed beyond the one-year time limit under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the application was filed out of time and that the applicant's subsequent efforts to be reinstated did not constitute a series of incidents.

The Tribunal further held that the applicant failed to establish that the delay was incurred in good faith, as she provided insufficient detail and no medical evidence to explain the delay.

The application was dismissed.