HRTO 2010

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the grounds of disability and receipt of public assistance after a failed attempt to purchase a co-ownership apartment unit.

The moving respondents requested to identify approximately 25 independent unit owners and their tenants as affected persons, arguing they could be impacted by the requested remedies.

The Tribunal dismissed the request at this stage, finding that naming the additional owners and tenants would unduly complicate the hearing on liability, as they were not alleged to have breached the Code.

The Tribunal noted the request could be revisited before determining the appropriate remedy if the applicant is successful on the merits.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw her human rights application pursuant to Rule 10 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondent made no submissions.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant filed human rights complaints against his former employer and union alleging harassment and discrimination.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed the scope of the application against the union, removing allegations that did not form part of the original subject matter.

The Tribunal also removed several personal respondents from the union application, finding the union remained vicariously liable.

Finally, the Tribunal ruled on the applicant's extensive production requests, limiting production to relevant, non-privileged communications within the applicable timeframe, and bifurcated the hearing into liability and remedy phases.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw his application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, pursuant to Rule 10 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondent consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw his human rights application against the Financial Services Commission of Ontario pursuant to Rule 10 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondent made no submissions.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw her human rights application.

The respondents made no submissions on the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw the human rights application pursuant to Rule 10 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondents made no submissions on the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw their human rights application pursuant to Rule 10 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondent made no submissions on the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The individual respondents requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision which found that the proceedings against them were not stayed.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, noting that the previous decision was interlocutory and therefore not subject to reconsideration under the Tribunal's rules, which only allow for the reconsideration of final decisions.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw his human rights application pursuant to Rule 10 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondents made no submissions on the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant filed a human rights application twelve days after the one-year limitation period expired.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

The applicant claimed the delay was due to health concerns related to diabetes, a trip to Africa, and a court date.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide information showing how his health concerns impacted his ability to file within the limitation period, and dismissed the application for lack of a good faith reason for the delay.

The applicant filed human rights applications alleging discrimination on the basis of sex in respect of employment and contracts against his former employer, Parkdale United Church, and its oversight bodies.

The respondents raised preliminary issues regarding delay, whether a prima facie case was established, and whether the matter was dealt with in another proceeding.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against Parkdale due to a delay of over two years that was not incurred in good faith.

However, the Tribunal found the applications against the oversight bodies were timely, established a prima facie case of discrimination, and were not barred by another proceeding under section 45.1 of the Code.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of sex and race, claiming she was treated unfairly and terminated during her probationary period for discriminatory reasons.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's perceptions of discrimination were based on ambiguous events and that the respondent provided credible, non-discriminatory reasons for her termination, including performance issues and an incident where she was unable to work due to crying.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the Niagara Police and the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services.

The Ministry requested early dismissal, arguing the allegations related only to the police.

After previously denying the request, the Tribunal decided to reconsider its earlier interim decision regarding the refusal to dismiss the application against the Ministry.

The Tribunal directed the parties to provide written submissions on the issue.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of association and reprisal, claiming she was punished for emailing a political opponent of a City Councillor using her work computer.

The Tribunal requested submissions to establish a connection between the alleged conduct and a prohibited ground under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant alleged sexual harassment based on a profane comment made by the Councillor about the political opponent.

The Tribunal found the comment did not constitute sex discrimination and that the applicant failed to link the alleged reprisal to the enforcement of Code rights.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

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

A hearing was scheduled and proper notice was provided to the parties.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing and provided no explanation for her absence.

The Tribunal dismissed the application due to the applicant's non-attendance.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision, alleging that the respondent continued to discriminate against her.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant did not take issue with the findings in the original decision but rather raised new allegations not part of the application.

The Tribunal noted the applicant could file a new application for new allegations and concluded she failed to establish any of the factors required for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to amend his human rights complaint to include other types of discrimination not originally included by the Commission.

The Tribunal denied the request, relying on the reasons set out in an earlier interim decision, and stated it would not consider further requests to expand the scope of the original complaint.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application under section 45.1 of the Code on the basis that the substance of the application had been appropriately dealt with by the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services.

The applicant argued she was denied a hearing and alleged police influence over the Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had requested the preliminary issue be dealt with in writing, and her dissatisfaction with the process did not establish a basis for reconsideration under the Tribunal's Rules.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, directing the applicant to provide submissions.

The applicant failed to provide any submissions within the required time.

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