HRTO 2010

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, claiming that hospital nurses gave away her pet cat without her consent while she was hospitalized in 2005.

The application was filed in 2010, well beyond the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the delay was not incurred in good faith, as the applicant's disability had stabilized in 2006 and she failed to make inquiries about her rights until 2009.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging racial discrimination in relation to several unsuccessful internal job applications.

The respondent requested the dismissal of allegations relating to a 2001 job application due to delay, and the applicant requested to add a manager as a personal respondent.

The Tribunal found that the 2001 application did not form part of a series of incidents and that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay.

The Tribunal also dismissed the request to add the personal respondent, finding no compelling reason to do so.

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

The respondents failed to file a Response within the required 35-day period after the Notice of Application was issued.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondents of the consequences of failing to participate, including the possibility of the Tribunal proceeding without them and deeming them to have accepted the allegations.

The respondents were granted a final opportunity to file a Response by June 21, 2010, along with an explanation for the delay.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, citing a scheduling conflict related to his retirement and the need to assist his wife with his ailing father-in-law in Ohio.

The respondents opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding that the reasons provided did not constitute exceptional circumstances, as the applicant could manage his retirement issues remotely and there was no specific emergency regarding his father-in-law.

The applicant filed human rights applications against her former employer and her union, alleging discrimination and reprisal.

The employer respondents sought early dismissal on the basis of delay, a full and final release from a grievance settlement, and section 45.1 of the Code.

The Tribunal found that the allegations against the employer respondents were filed nearly three years after the last incident and that the delay was not incurred in good faith, as the applicant had independent counsel and chose to pursue a labour arbitration instead.

The application against the employer respondents was dismissed for delay.

The allegations against the union respondents, which were conceded to be timely, were allowed to proceed to a hearing.

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

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed because it was filed outside the one-year time limit set out in section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The union filed a request to intervene to provide factual information, which was granted as it was unopposed.

The Tribunal directed that a hearing be scheduled to determine whether the delay in filing the application was incurred in good faith and whether substantial prejudice would result.

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

She also commenced a wrongful dismissal action in the Superior Court of Justice seeking damages for breaches of the Human Rights Code based on the same facts.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed pursuant to section 34(11) of the Code.

The Tribunal found that the civil proceeding sought remedies for the alleged Code infringement and therefore the Tribunal had no jurisdiction.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous decision that dismissed his human rights application as an abuse of process because he had signed a full and final release.

The applicant argued he was unaware he needed legal representation, his wife was excluded from the hearing, and he did not have eight days to consider the severance package.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding the applicant filed past the 30-day deadline without explanation and failed to present any new facts or evidence that met the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

The applicant filed human rights applications against her employer and union alleging discrimination on the basis of disability.

The respondents requested that the applications be dismissed or deferred pending the outcome of outstanding grievances, that the corporate respondent be corrected, and that the personal respondents be removed.

The Tribunal deferred the applications pending the resolution of the outstanding grievances, substituted Complex Services Inc. for the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation as the corporate respondent, and removed the individual respondents from the employer application.

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

Following a reconsideration decision that directed the applicant to advise if he wished to make further submissions on a preliminary issue, the applicant failed to respond.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant may have abandoned his application and directed him to respond within seven days to explain his failure, failing which the application would be dismissed.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment based on sex and sexual orientation.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to defer the matter pending a grievance.

The applicant submitted that the grievance was withdrawn following a settlement.

The respondents filed a request to remove an individual respondent as a party.

The Tribunal ordered the parties and the union to provide further written submissions on the potential deferral and the request to remove the individual respondent before making a determination on these preliminary issues.

The applicant requested an order to consolidate his section 53(5) application regarding a 2006 incident of alleged police misconduct with a section 34 application regarding a separate incident.

The respondent objected, noting it had not been served with the section 34 application and that the two applications related to discrete events separated by four years.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding it would not be fair, just, or expeditious to consolidate the matters given their different stages of proceeding and the impending hearing date for the initial application.

The respondents requested early dismissal of the human rights application under s. 45.1 of the Code, arguing that an Employment Standards Officer had already appropriately dealt with the substance of the applicant's claims of pregnancy discrimination and reprisal.

The Tribunal noted that s. 43(2) of the Code requires affording parties a chance to make oral submissions before finally disposing of an application.

Accordingly, the Tribunal scheduled a half-day hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed in whole or in part.

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

The respondents requested that the application be deferred because of an ongoing union grievance proceeding based on the same facts and issues.

The Tribunal found significant overlap between the application and the grievance, which was scheduled for arbitration.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance proceeding.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability following his termination after a workplace injury.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the application pending the outcome of the applicant's appeal before the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding an Employment Standards Officer's decision on the same termination.

The Tribunal granted the deferral, finding that concurrent proceedings dealing with the same factual issues could lead to inconsistent decisions.

The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex, claiming her pregnancy and parental leaves were factors in her termination.

The respondents sought to defer the Application due to an ongoing, concurrent claim under the Employment Standards Act (ESA) dealing with the same issues.

The Tribunal granted the deferral, finding considerable overlap in the subject matter and noting that the remedies available under the ESA and the Code are similar in these circumstances.

The applicant failed to file required pre-hearing materials and did not initially confirm his intention to proceed with the hearing as directed by a prior interim decision.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant subsequently contacted the Tribunal, confirming his intention to proceed but requesting an adjournment due to a family emergency and lack of legal representation.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, finding no extraordinary circumstances to justify a late adjournment, but declined to dismiss the application as abandoned since the applicant confirmed his intention to appear.

The hearing was ordered to proceed as scheduled.

The respondents requested the early dismissal of a human rights application under section 53(8) of the Human Rights Code, arguing it was substantially the same as a previous complaint filed by the applicant's spouse.

The Tribunal found that the current application, which alleged discrimination based on marital status and disability regarding inquiries made to the spouse's disability insurer, was not substantially the same as the spouse's employment accommodation complaint.

The request to dismiss was denied.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability and ethnic origin.

The applicant submitted newspaper and magazine articles and alleged adjudicator bias, while disputing the Tribunal's factual findings.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant failed to meet the criteria under Rule 25.5, as he presented no new determinative evidence and was merely attempting to re-argue his case.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability after his group benefits were discontinued during a company restructuring.

The respondent failed to file a timely response but subsequently submitted that it had declared bankruptcy and that the successor company had no employment relationship with the applicant.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to file submissions on whether the application is stayed under section 69 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.