HRTO 2010

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on marital and family status due to an anti-nepotism policy.

She brought a Request for Order During Proceedings to add VW Credit Canada Inc. as a respondent and to amend her application to challenge the constitutional validity of s. 24(1)(d) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal granted the request to add VW Credit Canada Inc., finding no prejudice to the proposed respondent.

The Tribunal held that an amendment was unnecessary for the applicant to seek a specific declaration of constitutional invalidity, provided proper notice is given to the Attorneys General.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the Ontario Human Rights Commission and the Ombudsman of Ontario.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application against the Commission was filed outside the one-year time limit and the application against the Ombudsman failed to allege any act of discrimination.

The applicant provided no explanation for the delay in filing against the Commission.

Furthermore, the mere fact that the Ombudsman did not investigate the applicant's matter did not establish a connection to discrimination under the Code.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against both respondents for lack of jurisdiction.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the respondent appeared to be the lawyer for another party in another legal proceeding, a relationship not covered by the Code.

The applicant failed to provide written submissions responding to the Notice within the required time.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned pursuant to Rule 5.4 of the Rules of Practice.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that she was sexually harassed by her branch manager during her employment as a telemarketer.

The corporate respondent went into receivership, and the applicant proceeded against the personal respondent alone.

The Tribunal heard conflicting testimony from the applicant, the respondent, and several former co-workers.

Applying established principles for assessing credibility, the Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove her allegations on a balance of probabilities.

The application was dismissed.

The respondent requested early dismissal of an application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in the provision of government services, arguing the matter was previously settled and a release was signed.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the current allegations cover the 2008-2009 year, which does not overlap with the period covered by the prior settlement.

The Tribunal directed that the application continue to be processed, limited to events occurring after July 18, 2008.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The respondent requested a deferral, noting that the applicant's union had filed a grievance based on the same facts and human rights issues.

The Tribunal observed that grievance arbitrators have the authority and responsibility to enforce human rights statutes, and that it generally defers applications where a concurrent grievance proceeding is ongoing.

Finding substantial overlap between the application and the grievance, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and age regarding the termination of her employment.

The respondents requested an early dismissal of the application, arguing that the applicant had signed a full and final release and that proceeding would be an abuse of process.

The applicant claimed she signed the release under financial duress.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to advise whether she wished to make oral submissions on the preliminary issue of dismissal, failing which the matter would be decided on the written record.

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

The respondents sought to defer the application because of an ongoing grievance proceeding raising substantially the same issues.

The Tribunal found significant overlap between the application and the grievance, noting that the arbitrator has the responsibility to apply the Code.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance and arbitration process.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in the provision of a service on the basis of disability.

A three-day hearing was scheduled.

The applicant and his next friend failed to attend the hearing despite receiving notice.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

In an interim decision, the applicant withdrew the application against the personal respondents.

The applicant also sought to appeal a previous interim decision that denied consolidation of this application with other related applications.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting there is no appeal from Tribunal decisions and the power of reconsideration does not apply to interim procedural rulings.

The matter was scheduled for mediation.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment based on place of origin and reprisal.

The respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking particulars and early dismissal of the reprisal allegations before filing its Response.

The applicant consented to providing particulars.

The Tribunal denied the request for early dismissal, noting that its rules generally require a full Response before preliminary objections are heard, and ordered the respondent to file its Response within five days.

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

The Notice of Application sent to the respondent was returned due to an incomplete address.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide a complete and accurate address for the respondent within 20 days, warning that failure to do so could result in dismissal.

The applicant failed to respond or provide the requested information.

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

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

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

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice, having only stated on his application form that he mistakenly believed the limitation period was two years.

The Tribunal found that ignorance of the law without making inquiries does not constitute a good faith reason for delay.

The application was dismissed.

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

Following the denial of an adjournment request, the applicant sent abusive correspondence to the Tribunal indicating he would not attend the scheduled hearing.

The respondent attended the hearing, but the applicant did not appear.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned due to the applicant's failure to attend and provide submissions in support of his allegations.

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

The Tribunal notified the applicant that the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction because it did not allege a ground or area of discrimination.

The applicant was directed to provide written submissions within 30 days but failed to respond.

As a result, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to remove his employer as a respondent following a settlement, and to re-activate his human rights application.

The Tribunal granted the request to remove the employer.

The personal respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the completion of related criminal proceedings against him.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide submissions on the deferral request before making a final determination.

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

After adjourning a scheduled mediation, the applicant failed to provide alternative dates or respond to a direction from the Registrar to notify the Tribunal of his intentions.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had abandoned the application and dismissed it.

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

She failed to attend a scheduled mediation and did not respond to a subsequent Tribunal letter inquiring about her intentions.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned pursuant to Rule 5.4 of the Rules of Practice.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and receipt of public assistance regarding food restrictions while incarcerated.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed for being filed outside the one-year limitation period under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide written submissions within 5 days addressing the delay and identifying allegations related to the receipt of public assistance.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal and discrimination in employment approximately 15 months after his last day of work.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed for delay.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's ignorance of his rights and how to contact the Tribunal did not constitute a good faith reason for the delay, as he provided no reason why he was unable to inquire about his rights earlier.

The application was dismissed.