HRTO 2010

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous decision that dismissed his human rights applications on the basis that he had signed a full and final release, making the applications an abuse of process.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to address any of the required grounds for reconsideration under Rule 25.5, instead attempting to reargue the merits of his case and making unsubstantiated allegations of bias.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant, a head dry cleaner, was terminated from his employment shortly after being hospitalized for newly diagnosed diabetes.

The respondent employer claimed the termination was due to a lack of work and a long-standing business plan to eliminate the applicant's high salary by having the owner learn the job.

The Tribunal found that while the employer did intend to eventually terminate the applicant, the timing of the termination was directly accelerated by the applicant's disability-related absence.

The Tribunal concluded this constituted discrimination in employment and awarded the applicant lost wages and damages for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking early dismissal of the human rights application under section 45.1 of the Code, arguing the matter was appropriately dealt with by the Employment Insurance Board of Referees.

The respondents also sought to remove the personal respondent from the proceeding.

The Tribunal scheduled oral submissions to determine the section 45.1 dismissal request, as required by section 43(2) of the Code.

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal granted the request to remove the personal respondent, noting the corporate respondent accepted liability for any damages flowing from the alleged violations.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of an interim decision that narrowed the scope of the issues to be addressed at the hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the interim decision was not a final decision that disposed of any central issues between the parties, and therefore was not subject to reconsideration under the Tribunal's Rules.

The applicant filed an application under section 53(5) of the Human Rights Code based on a complaint previously filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

The Tribunal found that the underlying complaint had already been dismissed by the Commission, and the request for reconsideration was also dismissed prior to the transition period.

Because the complaint was not continued at the time the section 53 application was filed, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability regarding poor quality home renovations completed in 1992 under a government accessibility program.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed due to a 1998 release and untimeliness.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation to demonstrate that the delay in filing the application was incurred in good faith as required by section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed for delay.

The applicant filed a human rights application against her union local and several individuals.

One of the individual respondents, Victor Trotman, brought a Request for Order During Proceedings to be removed as a respondent.

The Tribunal found that Trotman's only connection to the events was allowing the union access to a room for a meeting, with no independent allegations of Code violations against him.

The Tribunal granted the request and removed Trotman as a respondent.

The personal respondent requested that the Tribunal decline to deal with the human rights application against her, arguing it was not a continued complaint under section 53(5) of the Human Rights Code because she had not heard from the Commission since a 2007 mediation.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the Commission had not dealt with the merits of the complaint, nor had it been withdrawn or settled.

Therefore, it remained an open complaint that the applicant was entitled to transition to the Tribunal.

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

Prior to the scheduled hearing, the applicant emailed the Tribunal asking how to drop his case, and the hearing dates were cancelled.

The Tribunal subsequently advised the applicant that failure to respond would result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant did not respond.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The respondent employer requested to consolidate three human rights applications filed by three family members (a mother, daughter, and step-father) who were all employed by the respondent and terminated following an incident involving the daughter.

The Tribunal granted the request to consolidate, finding that the facts and issues were common and interrelated, and that consolidation would avoid inconvenience, repetition of evidence, and the risk of inconsistent results.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal in housing.

She subsequently filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to defer her application, citing a high-risk pregnancy, ongoing mental illness, and homelessness.

The respondents did not reply to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, extending the deadline for the applicant's Reply and holding the matter in abeyance for six months.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in educational services.

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to dismiss allegations pertaining to non-applicants, requesting particulars, and seeking an extension of time to file a Response.

The applicant sought to add his mother and sisters as applicants.

The Tribunal ordered a conference call hearing to address whether the mother and sisters should be added as parties, whether their claims are barred by delay, the request for particulars, and whether the application should continue against a respondent who is out of the country.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of creed in the provision of educational services, claiming the respondents failed to accommodate his religious beliefs.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss regarding two individual respondents.

Based on the applicant's submissions, the Tribunal removed one individual respondent but retained the other, as it was not plain and obvious she should not be named given her alleged role as a decision-maker in the applicant's termination from the program.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates, citing the unavailability of a witness.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the intended evidence of the unavailable witness appeared irrelevant to the matters at issue, as it pertained to the applicant's job performance which the respondent did not dispute.

The Tribunal directed that the hearing proceed as scheduled, with the possibility of an adjournment if the evidence later proved relevant.

The applicant filed multiple Requests for Orders seeking production of documents from the Ministry of the Attorney General and the Ontario Human Rights Commission, reconsideration of a prior interim decision, and an adjournment or striking of the respondents' request for dismissal due to alleged non-compliance with a production order.

The Tribunal denied the production requests as the documents were not arguably relevant to the preliminary issue of whether the application was barred by a civil action.

The request for reconsideration was denied because the prior decision was not final.

The requests to strike and adjourn were also denied, with the Tribunal directing that the issue of the respondents' compliance with the production order be addressed at the upcoming hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging racial discrimination by a police officer.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed the applicant's request for production of the officer's complete personnel file and the respondent Board's request to dismiss the application against it.

The Tribunal denied the production request as over-broad, citing previous jurisprudence.

The Tribunal also declined to dismiss the application against the Board, finding it was properly named in a representative capacity and could potentially be found liable for the officer's actions.

Finally, noting the applicant's failure to file required materials, the Tribunal ordered the applicant to confirm his intention to proceed with the scheduled hearing.

The applicant filed an Application relating to the special diet allowance under Ontario's social assistance programs.

The Tribunal directed that this Application be treated in accordance with the 'lead case' procedure established for similar special diet allowance cases, unless the applicant provides compelling reasons not to do so within two weeks.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code but failed to attend a scheduled mediation.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to communicate his intention to either reschedule the mediation or proceed to a hearing, warning that failure to respond would result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant did not respond.

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

The applicant, a probationary Quality and Risk Applications Specialist, alleged she was subjected to sex discrimination when her manager required her to complete a business plan, a task she claimed her male colleagues were not required to do.

Her employment was terminated during her probationary period due to performance issues.

The Tribunal found that the business plan requirement was a common practice at the hospital applied to all Application Specialists regardless of gender.

The application was dismissed as the applicant failed to establish that her gender was a factor in the employer's requirements or decisions.

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

On the morning of the scheduled hearing, the applicant telephoned the Tribunal to advise she could not attend.

The Tribunal subsequently wrote to the applicant requiring her to explain her absence and indicate whether she wished to proceed or withdraw the application.

The applicant failed to respond by the deadline.

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