HRTO 2010

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and requested that the Tribunal expedite the application due to impacts on her mental and physical health and her family's wellbeing.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant failed to provide details demonstrating truly urgent circumstances that would prevent a fair and just resolution if the regular process were followed.

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

The respondent requested an early dismissal on the basis that the applicant had accepted a termination package and signed a full and final release.

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's notices regarding the request to dismiss.

The Tribunal found that the release clearly encompassed claims under the Human Rights Code and that allowing the application to proceed would be an abuse of process.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application which was deferred pending the conclusion of a union grievance.

After the grievance concluded, the Tribunal directed the applicant to indicate whether he wished to reactivate or withdraw the application.

The applicant failed to respond to the direction.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application in 2010 regarding the termination of his employment in 1994.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss due to the 15-year delay.

The applicant submitted that the delay was caused by his pursuit of other avenues to resolve the matter.

The Tribunal found that pursuing other avenues is not a good faith reason for delay, and that a 15-year delay would necessarily result in substantial prejudice to the respondent.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in goods, services, and facilities on the basis of disability, claiming the respondent failed to accommodate his need to have his coffee heated for thirty seconds to kill harmful bacteria.

The applicant also filed a Request to Expedite the application, arguing that his life had become paralyzed and he was experiencing humiliation.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate truly urgent circumstances that would warrant giving the application priority over other matters.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

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

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondent to file a Response within 10 days, along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice and deem the respondent to have accepted the allegations.

The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination on the basis of creed by his manager.

The respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to dismiss the application on a preliminary basis, arguing the applicant failed to name a recognized creed and did not establish a prima facie case.

The Tribunal deferred the request and ordered a conference call hearing to hear submissions on whether the allegations constitute 'creed' under the Code and whether they raise a prima facie violation.

The applicant filed a human rights application.

The respondent failed to file a response within the required 35-day period, despite leaving voicemail messages with the Tribunal.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondent to file a response within 10 days, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice and deem the respondent to have accepted the allegations.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application as untimely.

He argued that the Tribunal made a premature decision because his related criminal charges had not yet been resolved.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the pending status of the criminal charges was known at the time of the original decision and did not constitute new evidence.

Furthermore, the eventual verdict in the criminal matter would have no bearing on the finding that the application was untimely.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination when the respondent doctor failed to accept her as a new patient.

A hearing was scheduled, and the applicant received proper notice.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing and did not communicate with the Tribunal to explain her absence, despite allegedly telling respondent's counsel she had requested an adjournment.

The Tribunal dismissed the application due to the applicant's failure to attend.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, colour, and age.

Both parties filed Requests for Order During Proceeding.

On consent, the Tribunal removed the individual respondents from the application and ordered that documents containing references to prior mediations be sealed.

The Tribunal deferred the remaining issues regarding timeliness, the scope of the application, and production of documents to be addressed at the scheduled oral hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination based on a comment made by a doctor treating his late wife.

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

The applicant argued the delay was incurred in good faith because he was pursuing an internal complaint with the hospital's CEO.

The Tribunal found that waiting for the outcome of other processes does not justify a delay in making inquiries about Code remedies or timelines.

The application was dismissed as out of time.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in the provision of services by the respondents, stemming from an incident nearly two years prior.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period.

The applicant claimed the delay was due to fear of being 'black-balled' in the medical community.

The Tribunal found this explanation inconsistent with the applicant's prior conduct of actively complaining to other bodies months before filing.

The Tribunal concluded the delay was not incurred in good faith and dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination in employment on the grounds of disability.

The corporate respondent filed a narrative 'Position Statement' instead of the required Form 2 Response.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Incomplete Response, but the respondents still failed to file the proper form.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to file a complete Response in Form 2 within 5 days, warning that failure to comply could trigger significant consequences under Rule 5.5.

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

After the Tribunal Registrar sought direction on whether the applicant wished to pursue the application, the applicant advised by email that he did not wish to pursue it.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings and a Request for a Tribunal Ordered Inquiry, seeking to add another respondent and obtain document production.

The Tribunal denied the requests, finding that the proposed respondents had no connection to the allegations against York University.

The Tribunal also held that the request for document production was premature, as the procedures under Rule 16 are triggered only when a Confirmation of Hearing is issued.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment.

After her legal counsel withdrew, the Tribunal made multiple attempts to obtain her up-to-date contact information.

The applicant failed to respond to a Case Assessment Direction requiring her to provide current contact information, and respondent counsel was unable to deliver documents to her.

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

The applicant requested that the Tribunal lift the deferral of his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of his union grievances.

The applicant argued that the arbitration process had been adjourned and could take up to two years.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that frustration with the length of the grievance process was not a sufficient reason to reverse the earlier decisions to defer the application.

The complainant sought to withdraw her human rights complaint regarding the special diet allowance.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario granted leave to withdraw the complaint based on correspondence from counsel to the Commission.

The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination on various grounds but failed to identify a social area.

Following an Interim Decision requesting clarification, the applicant submitted that he was not alleging discrimination under the Human Rights Code and acknowledged the Application was likely outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The Tribunal dismissed the Application as it lacked jurisdiction to hear complaints not related to a ground and social area under the Code.