HRTO 2010

The applicant filed a human rights application against an organizational respondent and two individual respondents.

None of the respondents filed a Response.

The applicant advised that the organizational respondent was in receivership but still operating, and that the individual respondents were no longer employed there.

The Tribunal ordered the organizational respondent to file a Response within 10 days or face consequences under Rule 5.5.

The Tribunal found the individual respondents were not properly served and ordered the applicant to provide their current addresses or seek an order requiring the organizational respondent to produce them.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability after she was not offered a job in Ontario following a work-related injury in Alberta.

The respondents challenged the Tribunal's jurisdiction, arguing the events occurred in Alberta and the application was out of time.

The Tribunal found it had jurisdiction over the allegations relating to the applicant's involvement with the respondents in Ontario and that the application was filed within one year of the last incident in the series of events.

The matter was directed to proceed to mediation or a hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of family and marital status following her termination.

The respondents requested early dismissal on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release in exchange for a termination compensation package.

The Tribunal found that the release clearly encompassed claims under the Human Rights Code, the applicant had the opportunity to seek legal advice, and there was no evidence of duress or coercion.

The Tribunal concluded that allowing the application to proceed would be an abuse of process and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application for delay.

The applicant alleged new facts regarding his medical condition and the mailing date of his application.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the applicant to provide documentary evidence, including WSIB materials and Canada Post records, before determining whether to grant the reconsideration request.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that a newspaper editorial discriminated against him on the basis of place of origin with respect to services, by dividing residents into 'locals' and 'imports'.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision scheduling a one-day hearing to determine preliminary questions of jurisdiction and whether the application has a reasonable prospect of success, given the significant legal issues regarding freedom of expression.

The respondents requested the dismissal of human rights complaints on the grounds that the Special Education Tribunal (SET) has exclusive jurisdiction over the identification, placement, and accommodation of students with special needs, and that the complaints were moot because the students were no longer enrolled with the respondent school board.

The Tribunal dismissed both requests.

It found that because the parties had agreed on the formal placement, the SET's own jurisprudence indicated it lacked jurisdiction over the remaining disputes about programs and services, meaning the SET did not have exclusive jurisdiction here.

The Tribunal also found the complaints were not moot because there remained a live controversy about whether the students were properly accommodated while enrolled, for which remedies like damages and declarations could still be awarded.

The applicant filed a Request for a Tribunal Ordered Inquiry under section 44 of the Human Rights Code to determine barriers to his return to work as a teacher.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding it premature to embark on an inquiry before the preliminary issue of whether the application had been settled or otherwise appropriately dealt with was determined.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sexual harassment during a single day of employment.

The applicant also filed a complaint under the Employment Standards Act regarding the same employment, which was currently being appealed to the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Tribunal deferred the human rights application pending the conclusion of the Employment Standards Act proceedings to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent findings of fact.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code but failed to attend a rescheduled mediation session.

The Tribunal attempted to contact the applicant, warning that the application would be deemed abandoned if no response was received.

The applicant did not respond.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability after being terminated following a cancer diagnosis.

Shortly after filing, the applicant died, and his wife filed a transitional application on behalf of his estate.

The respondents sought to dismiss the application, arguing that human rights claims are personal and abate upon death.

The Tribunal distinguished claims against private actors under the Code from Charter claims regarding government services, finding that a claim for employment discrimination is akin to a breach of contract action and does not abate upon death.

The Tribunal also held that a human rights application is a statutory claim, not a common law action, and is therefore not extinguished by the common law maxim actio personalis moritur cum persona.

The applicant, a candidate in the lawyer licensing process who failed the licensing examinations nine times, filed a human rights application alleging failure to accommodate her disabilities and discriminatory comments by Law Society staff.

The respondents requested dismissal under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the accommodation issues had been appropriately dealt with by the Law Society's Professional Development and Competence Committee and the Divisional Court on judicial review.

The Tribunal also found that the allegations regarding discriminatory comments were filed outside the one-year limitation period without a good faith explanation for the delay.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application but failed to comply with disclosure obligations despite multiple Case Assessment Directions and a teleconference.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the applicant that unless she provided her witness list, witness statements, and documents by May 27, 2010, the application would be considered abandoned and dismissed.

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

After the respondent advised the Tribunal that the parties had settled, the Tribunal directed the applicant to file a Form 9 by a specified date, warning that failure to do so would result in the file being considered abandoned.

The applicant did not file the form or communicate with the Tribunal.

As a result, the Tribunal cancelled the scheduled mediation and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex and reprisal in employment.

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

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondents to file a Response within 7 days, warning that failure to do so could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming the respondents to have accepted the allegations.

The applicant requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of her human rights application pending the outcome of her concurrent Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) claims regarding the same events.

The respondents opposed the deferral, arguing the proceedings involved different legal theories and noting they had already incurred mediation costs.

The Tribunal granted the deferral, finding a clear overlap between the issues and potential damages in the two proceedings, and noted that the extent of WSIB compensation would be relevant if the human rights application later proceeded.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing on the grounds of sexual orientation, family status, and marital status.

Following the death of his same-sex partner of 30 years, the applicant alleged the respondent housing corporation failed to treat him as a spouse, resulting in the deceased's biological family taking control of the apartment and the applicant's personal belongings.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no evidence that the respondent had any knowledge of the relationship between the applicant and the deceased, as they lived in separate units and kept their relationship private.

The applicant, a university student with a disability, filed human rights complaints against the university and two student unions, alleging discrimination because her disability prevented her from taking enough credits for full-time status, thereby denying her certain benefits.

The university and one student union requested dismissal of the applications under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code and as an abuse of process, arguing the matter had already been dealt with by the university's internal Anti-Discrimination Tribunal.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario found that the internal tribunal hearing constituted a 'proceeding' that appropriately dealt with the substance of the application against the university.

The Tribunal also dismissed the application against the student union as an abuse of process, noting the internal tribunal had recorded that complaint as resolved.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the ground of colour.

After mediation failed, a hearing was scheduled.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed as abandoned because the applicant had not filed any documents.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to confirm his intention to appear at the hearing.

The applicant failed to provide written confirmation.

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

The applicant filed an application against her adopted mother concerning conduct related to the custody of the applicant's daughter.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss as the application did not appear to allege discrimination in a protected area under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued the area of housing applied because the alleged discrimination was partly based on her living in a low-income neighbourhood.

The Tribunal concluded it lacked jurisdiction to deal with allegations outside the areas set out in the Code and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination on the basis of disability more than one year after the last alleged incident.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed for delay.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's failure to inquire into the limitation period and her decision to wait for the conclusion of a grievance arbitration did not constitute a good faith reason for the delay.

The application was dismissed pursuant to section 34 of the Human Rights Code.