HRTO 2010

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing of their human rights application.

The respondent attended and brought a motion to dismiss the application as deemed abandoned.

After confirming the applicant had not contacted the Tribunal to explain their absence, the adjudicator granted the motion and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination in employment following his termination.

The respondent requested an early dismissal, arguing the matter was barred by a full and final release and minutes of settlement from a prior small claims court action.

The Tribunal noted that under section 43(2) of the Human Rights Code, it cannot finally dispose of an application without affording the parties an opportunity to make oral submissions.

Accordingly, the Tribunal scheduled a half-day hearing to consider the respondent's request for early dismissal and directed the parties to provide updates on a second small claims court action.

The applicant filed an application alleging workplace discrimination on the basis of race and colour.

The respondent sought early dismissal under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application had been dealt with through union grievances.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to withdraw the application against the union.

Finding insufficient information to determine the status and outcome of the grievances, the Tribunal directed the parties to provide further written submissions on whether the application should proceed, be dismissed, or be deferred.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal following an alleged false arrest and incarceration.

The Crown Attorney respondents requested the application be dismissed, arguing they do not provide 'services' under the Code and have prosecutorial immunity.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide submissions explaining how the alleged actions of the Crown Attorney respondents amount to discrimination in the provision of a good, service, or facility before deciding whether to dismiss the application against them or defer the matter pending outstanding criminal proceedings.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and age, claiming the employer failed to accommodate his medical condition following a heart attack.

The applicant also filed a Request to Expedite the Application, asserting that performing his duties would endanger his life.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant provided no medical or other information to demonstrate that the circumstances were truly urgent or that his health would be compromised if the regular process were followed.

The respondents requested a reconsideration of the Tribunal's previous decisions regarding liability and remedy for the termination of the applicant's employment.

The respondents argued there were palpable errors in findings of fact, specifically regarding whether the termination was informed by the applicant's perceived disability, and disputed the calculation of lost wages and business losses.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, holding that reconsideration is not an appeal or an opportunity to re-argue findings of fact.

The respondent requested reconsideration of a portion of an Interim Decision that declined to dismiss certain allegations for failure to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.

The Tribunal held that the aspect of the Interim Decision identified for reconsideration was not a final decision, as no conclusive findings were made regarding the continued allegations.

The request for reconsideration was denied as premature.

The applicant sought to file a transitional application with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario after the statutory deadline of June 30, 2009.

The applicant's counsel claimed the application was mailed prior to the deadline, but the Tribunal had no record of receiving it.

The Tribunal held that it has no discretion to extend the statutory deadline under section 53(5) of the Human Rights Code.

Finding insufficient evidence that the application was actually mailed to the Tribunal before the deadline, the Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability regarding comments made on television broadcasts by the respondents.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that broadcasting falls under federal jurisdiction.

The applicant did not provide submissions.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that both the regulation and content of television broadcasts are within exclusive federal jurisdiction pursuant to section 92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging a failure to accommodate her disability.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred because the applicant's union had filed concurrent grievances based on the same facts and human rights issues.

The Tribunal noted that grievance arbitrators have the authority to enforce human rights obligations and that deferral is the normal approach when concurrent proceedings exist.

As the applicant did not oppose the request, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by the respondent doctor during her post-partum medical treatment.

The application was filed more than two years after the last alleged incident.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application was outside the one-year time limit under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant claimed she delayed filing due to fear of further reprisal.

The Tribunal found this explanation inconsistent with her actions at the time, which included contacting a lawyer and filing a police complaint.

Finding no good faith explanation for the delay, the Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The original decision found that the substance of the application had been appropriately dealt with by the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The adjudicator denied the reconsideration request, finding that the applicant was attempting to re-argue his case and had not established any of the threshold criteria under Rule 26, such as new evidence or a conflict with established jurisprudence.

The applicant filed a Request for Order during Proceedings seeking to deem the respondent, Multi Disciplinary Assessment Centre (MDAC), to have accepted all allegations in the human rights complaint due to its failure to file a Response.

MDAC subsequently filed its Response two days later.

The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's request, noting that MDAC had participated in mediation and clearly indicated its intention to participate in the proceedings, and that there was no prejudice to the applicant in permitting the late filing.

The applicant filed a human rights application but failed to attend the scheduled hearing.

The applicant had a history of non-participation, including failing to file a reply, missing a scheduled mediation, ignoring requests for orders, and failing to fulfill disclosure obligations.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed as abandoned.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of record of offences, claiming the respondent improperly collected and considered information about criminal charges for which he received a discharge.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide submissions on whether he had a 'record of offences' within the meaning of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the clear statutory definition of 'record of offences' in section 10 of the Code only protects individuals who have been convicted of an offence and received a pardon, or convicted of a provincial offence.

As the applicant was never convicted and only received a discharge, he did not fall within the Code's protection.

The applicant suffered a workplace injury at age 63 and received loss of earnings benefits from the WSIB for two years.

The benefits were terminated when he turned 65, pursuant to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act.

He filed an application alleging age discrimination.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction because section 2.1 of the Act expressly exempts its age-based distinctions from the Human Rights Code.

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

The Tribunal scheduled a hearing, but the applicant failed to attend, having previously informed a Tribunal staff member that she would not be coming.

The respondent attended and requested the application be dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the application due to the applicant's failure to attend and provide evidence in support of her allegations.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission requested to intervene as a party in multiple transitional applications filed by former employees of the respondent who alleged age and disability discrimination following a corporate downsizing.

The Tribunal held that the Commission does not have an automatic right to intervene as a party in transitional applications and must seek leave.

Applying the test for intervention, the Tribunal granted the Commission limited intervenor status solely to call a witness to identify witness statements and statistical evidence obtained during its investigation, finding that full party status would cause significant disruption and delay to the scheduled hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex (pregnancy), claiming she was terminated after taking maternity and parental leave.

She also filed a parallel complaint under the Employment Standards Act (ESA) based on almost identical facts.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the resolution of the ESA proceedings.

Finding that the subject matter was substantially the same and that the ESA process would likely conclude first, the Tribunal ordered the application deferred.

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

The respondents failed to file a Response despite multiple Tribunal directions and warnings.

A representative for one respondent claimed a joint Response was sent, but the Tribunal never received it.

A new property management company subsequently contacted the Tribunal.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondents to clarify their relationship, identify contact persons, and immediately file the Response along with proof of original transmission.