HRTO 2010

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging the WSIB failed to refer him to a medical electro-industrial specialist.

The Tribunal directed the parties to provide submissions on whether the application should be deferred pending the applicant's ongoing WSIB appeal regarding his entitlement to benefits.

Finding that the facts and issues were substantially the same as those in the concurrent WSIB proceeding, the Tribunal deferred the application until the conclusion of the WSIB appeal.

The applicant, a teacher, filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability after being removed from the classroom.

He also filed a Request to Expedite the Application, citing financial pressures and psychological harm.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the circumstances described did not meet the high threshold for urgency required by the Rules of Procedure, and noted that the seven-month delay in filing the application weighed against granting the request.

The employer brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings to dismiss the human rights application for delay, as it was filed approximately eight months past the one-year time limit under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued the delay was incurred in good faith due to severe physical and mental disabilities, including CFIDS, ADHD, and GAD, which caused significant cognitive dysfunction, compounded by living in poverty.

The Tribunal admitted the applicant's medical evidence over the employer's procedural objections.

The Tribunal found the applicant met the good faith test for the delay and that the employer failed to establish significant prejudice.

The employer's request to dismiss the application was denied.

The applicants filed a joint request for reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed their claims of discrimination in employment.

They argued that the original decision conflicted with established jurisprudence and Tribunal procedure, citing issues with evidence admission, factual findings regarding their termination as a team, and the weight given to a Ministry of Labour officer's conclusions.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicants were attempting to re-argue their case and challenge findings of fact, which are not proper grounds for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

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

The respondent filed an incomplete Response, failing to indicate whether it sought deferral based on outstanding grievances.

The Tribunal accepted the Response as sufficiently complete.

Noting that the applicant's union had filed grievances based on the same facts, the Tribunal directed the parties to provide written submissions on whether the application should be deferred pending the conclusion of the grievance and arbitration procedure.

The respondent requested that the human rights application alleging disability discrimination in employment be dismissed under section 34(11) of the Code, arguing that a civil proceeding had been commenced addressing the same issues.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the civil claim did not raise the Code or allege discrimination.

The Tribunal directed that a preliminary hearing be scheduled to hear oral submissions on whether the application should be dismissed under section 45.1 or deferred pending the outcome of the civil proceeding.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application due to delay.

She argued the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence and involved matters of public importance, but failed to provide supporting reasons or cite any specific conflicts.

The applicant also objected to the inclusion of her information in the public decision and requested that the Tribunal not publish its decisions on.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, noting that open justice requires parties to know the information relied upon, and declined to depart from its practice of publishing decisions.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application due to delay.

She argued that the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence and that other factors outweighed the public interest in finality, but failed to provide supporting reasons or cite any conflicting jurisprudence.

The applicant also objected to the inclusion of her information in the public decision and requested that the decision not be published on.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, affirming the principles of open justice and its practice of publishing decisions.

The respondent requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found she discriminated against the applicants based on sexual orientation and/or marital status when denying them bed and breakfast accommodation.

The respondent argued the Tribunal failed to apply the doctrine of illegality regarding an unlicensed room and applied the wrong legal test.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding the illegality argument was raised for the first time on reconsideration and the legal test argument was a reformulation of an already rejected position.

The applicant requested reconsideration of an interim decision dealing with production requests.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the interim decision was not a final decision that disposed of the substance or a central element of the dispute.

As the decision did not deprive the applicant of any prospect of a remedy and did not dispose of the entirety of the complaint, it could not be the subject of a reconsideration request under Rule 25.1.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that the Ontario Labour Relations Board, its Vice-chair, and its Registrar discriminated against him on the basis of his Aboriginal status when dismissing his reprisal application.

The respondents sought to dismiss the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the adjudicative process of a quasi-judicial tribunal does not constitute a service under the Human Rights Code and is protected by adjudicative immunity.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the police during his arrest, but filed it more than a year after the incident.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed for delay.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, noting that waiting for other legal proceedings or gathering evidence does not constitute good faith delay under section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed as out of time.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that the respondent breached a 2002 settlement agreement regarding the provision of Braille labels on exercise equipment.

The respondent sought to dismiss the application on the basis of delay, as the complaint was filed in 2007, more than one year after the alleged breach.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, noting his lack of participation in implementing the settlement and his continued use of the facility over several years without raising formal concerns.

The application was dismissed for delay.

The applicant alleged that her employment was terminated because she was pregnant, constituting discrimination on the basis of sex under the Human Rights Code.

The respondent maintained that the applicant was dismissed due to poor performance during training and denied knowing she was pregnant.

The Tribunal found the respondent's witnesses credible, concluded that management was unaware of the pregnancy, and determined the dismissal was based on performance concerns.

The application was dismissed.

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

After indicating a desire to withdraw the application in correspondence, the applicant was instructed to file a formal Request to Withdraw.

The applicant responded with a letter expressing a desire to have no further involvement with the Tribunal.

The Tribunal granted leave to withdraw the application pursuant to Rule 10 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant filed a Request for Order during Proceeding seeking the production of the respondent employer's hire/status report for the period corresponding to her parental leave.

The applicant alleged that her lay-off and subsequent unsuitable job offer were related to her pregnancy, and that she was not made aware of suitable alternative employment during her leave.

The Tribunal found the requested documents arguably relevant to the issues raised in the Application and ordered the organizational respondent to produce the report.

The applicant filed a Request to Withdraw an Application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, conditional on the respondents not taking legal action against her.

The respondents consented to the withdrawal and confirmed they had no current intention of taking legal action.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment, housing, and services.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to be filed outside the one-year limitation period and failed to identify specific acts of discrimination.

The applicant also acknowledged a concurrent proceeding before the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to file written submissions on the issues of jurisdiction and deferral, and gave the applicant an opportunity to reply.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the respondents.

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

After reviewing the applicant's written submissions, the Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The Tribunal directed the parties to provide written submissions on whether the application should be deferred pending the outcome of a concurrent proceeding before the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

The applicant filed a human rights application more than one year after the last alleged incident of discrimination, claiming she only discovered the discrimination upon obtaining her medical records.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for untimeliness.

The Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the delay was not incurred in good faith, and declined to dismiss the application at the preliminary stage.

The Tribunal also noted a concurrent proceeding before the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario and directed the parties to provide written submissions on whether the application should be deferred.