HRTO 2010

The applicant and respondents both filed requests to amend their pleadings.

The Tribunal granted both requests.

The Tribunal also reviewed the parties' pleadings and witness disclosures, noting concerns about unclear allegations regarding disability discrimination and reprisal, new allegations not in the pleadings, and potentially repetitive or irrelevant witness evidence.

The Tribunal directed that the first hour of the upcoming hearing be dedicated to addressing these case management issues.

The applicant, a tenant in a rooming house, alleged harassment and discrimination based on sexual orientation and receipt of public assistance by the landlord and its agents.

The Tribunal found that the landlord's agent, Mr. Perruccio, used homophobic slurs and made derogatory comments about the applicant's receipt of social assistance during a dispute over property repairs.

The application was allowed in part, with the Tribunal awarding $850 in general damages and ordering human rights training and the development of a human rights policy.

The complainant filed human rights complaints alleging discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and disability, as well as reprisals, against his former employer, a school board, and two individuals.

He had also commenced a civil action against the school board for wrongful dismissal and intentional infliction of mental suffering arising from the same events.

The Tribunal held that the complaint against the school board and its human resources director was barred by section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code because the civil action sought remedies for the same alleged Code infringements.

The complaint against the individual respondent who was not named in the civil action was permitted to proceed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging workplace harassment based on sexual orientation and reprisals.

He brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend his application to add several new factual allegations and a claim for $500,000 in damages.

The respondents opposed the request, arguing the new allegations were irrelevant and brought in bad faith.

The Tribunal allowed the amendment to add the damages claim and the allegations that were relevant to the application, finding no substantial prejudice to the respondents.

The request to add irrelevant allegations was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and failure to accommodate following her termination.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed as it was filed outside the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the 16-month delay and did not establish that the delay was incurred in good faith.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on sex (pregnancy).

The respondent failed to file a Response within the required timeframe and ignored a subsequent Interim Decision directing it to do so.

The Tribunal ordered that the respondent is deemed to have waived all rights to notice or participation in the proceedings and is deemed to have accepted all allegations in the application pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The Tribunal will proceed to determine the application based on the applicant's materials.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race, place of origin, citizenship, and ethnic origin after failing to complete the requirements of an online Bachelor of Education program.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the allegations regarding the courses were filed outside the one-year limitation period and the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The Tribunal also dismissed the allegations regarding the university's appeal process, finding that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment during workplace training.

The respondent requested an order dismissing the application on the basis that it is a federally-regulated interprovincial bus transit company.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's operations fall within federal jurisdiction pursuant to section 92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1867, and therefore the provincial Human Rights Code does not apply.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a transitional human rights application alleging her union discriminated against her on the basis of age and disability in processing a grievance.

The underlying grievance was settled at arbitration, and the union argued the application should be dismissed as an abuse of process or under section 45.1 of the Code.

The Tribunal directed a Case Resolution Conference to hear oral submissions on this issue.

The Tribunal also denied the applicant's request to add her former employer as a respondent, noting the new allegations related to the arbitration settlement did not form part of the original complaint.

The applicant, who had taken a medical leave for depression and anxiety, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability regarding his return to work and subsequent termination.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario found that the respondent employer failed to properly accommodate the applicant upon his return, unilaterally demoting him and reducing his pay based on assumptions about his mental health rather than legitimate business needs.

The Tribunal further held that the termination of the applicant's employment for refusing to sign a new contract with these discriminatory terms was a breach of the Human Rights Code.

The respondent was ordered to pay wage loss compensation, $15,000 for injury to dignity, and to undergo mandatory human rights training.

The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination and harassment in employment on the basis of disability and reprisal, along with a Request to Expedite the Application due to financial hardship and emotional stress.

The Tribunal denied the Request to Expedite, finding that purely financial losses and ongoing health concerns do not meet the high threshold for urgency required to bypass the regular process.

Furthermore, the Tribunal noted the applicant delayed in filing the Application without sufficient explanation.

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

She also filed a Request to Expedite the Application, citing financial hardship and health issues.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that purely financial losses and ongoing health implications do not meet the high threshold for urgency required to expedite an application.

Furthermore, the applicant delayed filing her application for at least eight months after the last alleged event without sufficient explanation.

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

She also filed a Request to Expedite the Application, citing extreme financial hardship, potential loss of her house, and health concerns.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that purely financial losses and ongoing health implications are common in employment discrimination applications and do not meet the high threshold of truly urgent circumstances required to expedite the process.

The respondent, VideoComm Technologies Inc., filed a request for reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision.

The respondent argued that facts were not considered, there were discrepancies in evidence, and it was denied the right to legal counsel.

The Tribunal found that the request was an attempt to re-argue the case and appeal the decision, and that the respondent failed to meet the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 102.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

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 involving four grievances.

The organization respondent agreed to the deferral, and the other respondents and the union did not provide submissions.

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

The corporate respondent brought requests for orders during the proceeding, including the removal of individual respondents, dismissal or deferral of the application due to the jurisdiction of the Health Services Appeal and Review Board (HSARB), and dismissal based on a recent Divisional Court decision regarding speech and language services.

The Tribunal removed the individual respondents on consent and dismissed the request to defer to the HSARB.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide particulars of her allegations and deferred the remaining requests to be heard at the Case Resolution Conference.

The respondents requested the dismissal of a human rights application under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, arguing that a parallel civil class action barred the application.

The Tribunal found that section 34(11) did not apply because the civil action did not seek remedies for discrimination.

However, the Tribunal granted the respondents' alternative request to defer the application pending the resolution of the civil action, noting the significant factual overlap and the public interest in avoiding duplicate proceedings and inconsistent findings.

The applicant filed a human rights application against multiple respondents.

One personal respondent, Katharine Brooks, failed to file a Response within the required 35-day period.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the non-responding party of the consequences under Rule 5.5 of the Rules of Procedure and providing a final deadline of July 5, 2010, to file a Response and explain the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice.

In an interim decision prior to a human rights hearing, the Tribunal addressed requests for orders during proceedings from both parties.

The self-represented applicant was permitted to amend his application to add age discrimination and specific details regarding his disability and accommodation requests, as the respondent was already aware of these allegations and would not be prejudiced.

The applicant was ordered to produce documents relating to his efforts to mitigate damages.

The respondent was ordered to make best efforts to obtain and disclose statistics concerning the age and race of the pre-layoff employee population, which were relevant to the applicant's claim of disproportionate impact.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed due to the applicant's failure to comply with disclosure obligations and prior Tribunal orders.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant lacked legal representation and had Code-related needs that made compliance difficult.

Balancing fairness to both parties, the Tribunal declined to dismiss the application.

Instead, it imposed procedural restrictions, limiting the first day of the hearing to the applicant's case and allowing the respondent to postpone cross-examination if prejudiced by the lack of prior disclosure.