HRTO 2010

The respondents requested an adjournment of the third day of a scheduled hearing because their counsel had to attend her daughter's graduation.

The request was made more than five days after the Confirmation of Hearing Notice was received.

The Tribunal found that the reason provided did not constitute an extraordinary circumstance as required by the Tribunal's Information Bulletin for late adjournment requests.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment but agreed to end the hearing early on that day to accommodate counsel.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the grounds of sex and sexual solicitation, claiming his supervisor sexually harassed him and subsequently terminated his employment.

The respondents requested early dismissal on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release upon termination.

The applicant argued he signed the release under economic duress due to financial hardship.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant may have been under financial pressure, he had a realistic alternative to signing the release and pursuing his statutory entitlements.

The Tribunal concluded the release was valid and dismissed the application as an abuse of process.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application, which alleged his race, colour, or religion was a factor in his dismissal.

He sought reconsideration on the basis of new evidence that the respondent hired a new service person rather than recalling him.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding the evidence could reasonably have been obtained earlier and was not potentially determinative of the case.

On consent of all parties, the Tribunal issued an interim decision removing Delta Bingo (St. Clair) Sponsors Association as a respondent and adding Delta Bingo Inc. as a respondent.

The style of cause was amended accordingly.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability after his request for accommodation when writing the Law School Admissions Test (LSAT) was denied.

He requested that the Tribunal expedite the application so it could be resolved before the June 2010 test date.

The Tribunal denied the request to expedite, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate truly urgent circumstances or explain why the issues needed to be resolved prior to this specific test date, especially since the scores would be too late for the 2010-2011 academic year.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application for lack of jurisdiction.

The original decision found that the respondent, a national courier service, fell under federal jurisdiction pursuant to s. 92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The applicant argued that a newly obtained Corporation Profile Report proving the respondent was provincially incorporated warranted reconsideration.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the provincial incorporation was not a new fact and had already been considered in the original decision.

The applicant, a police constable, filed an application alleging employment discrimination based on disability.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the completion of a grievance proceeding and a misconduct investigation.

Noting contradictory submissions regarding the status of the grievance, the Tribunal directed the police association and the respondents to provide written submissions on the deferral issue before making a determination.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability and record of offences following her termination after a medical leave.

The corporate respondent requested deferral of the application due to an ongoing civil proceeding for wrongful dismissal.

The Tribunal dismissed the deferral request because the civil claim did not allege discrimination or seek human rights remedies, and the human rights application was at a more advanced stage.

The Tribunal also struck the ground of record of offences as there were no supporting allegations, and directed the applicant to clarify her intentions regarding the individual respondent.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the grounds of sex and family status after being terminated while on maternity/parental leave.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the outcome of the applicant's related Employment Standards Act claim, which was under appeal to the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Tribunal granted the deferral, finding that the two proceedings dealt with substantially the same issues and that deferral would avoid unnecessary duplication and the risk of inconsistent findings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability.

The facts of the application were also the subject of a union grievance.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer, and the respondents submitted that the application should be deferred pending the arbitration hearing.

The Tribunal deferred the application under section 45 of the Human Rights Code, finding that proceeding concurrently would be an inefficient use of resources and could lead to inconsistent findings.

The applicant, a former Table Games Supervisor of Vietnamese descent, alleged that his employer discriminated against him on the basis of race when it disciplined him, gave him a poor performance review, and subsequently terminated his employment during a company restructuring.

The Tribunal found that the discipline was imposed for a serious breach of internal procedures and that a non-Asian supervisor received harsher discipline for the same incident.

The Tribunal also accepted the employer's uncontradicted evidence that the applicant was selected for termination based solely on his low performance ratings, not his race.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex, including sexual harassment.

A hearing was scheduled to address whether a full and final release signed by the applicant barred the application.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing without explanation.

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

The applicant sought to amend her human rights application against a social housing provider regarding its identification requirements.

The Tribunal granted the request to remove the ground of receipt of public assistance on consent.

The Tribunal also granted the contested request to amend the application to allege discrimination on the basis of place of origin rather than citizenship, finding that the narrative supported the amendment and any prejudice to the respondent could be remedied by allowing it to amend its response.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment.

The respondents filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to dismiss the application, arguing that the organizational respondent is a transportation company governed by federal jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that the respondents provided insufficient information to determine whether the company operates interprovincially.

The Tribunal directed the respondents to provide further submissions on the jurisdiction issue.

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.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisals by her employer, specifically regarding comments made to the WSIB and a refusal to allow her to return to work.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss to address whether the application was untimely or should be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code because of a WSIAT decision and a union grievance.

The Tribunal found that neither the WSIAT decision nor the withdrawn grievance appropriately dealt with the substance of the human rights allegations.

The Tribunal deferred the issue of timeliness to the hearing due to a factual dispute regarding a recent meeting, and ordered the respondent to file a full response.

The applicants filed applications alleging reprisal and threats of reprisal by the respondents, who acted as counsel in a previous human rights proceeding.

The respondents requested an order dismissing the applications as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to withdraw the application against a numbered corporation, ordered that the two applications be processed together, and scheduled a preliminary hearing to determine whether the applications should be dismissed as an abuse of process or under section 45.1 of the Code, and whether the applicants should be declared vexatious litigants.

The applicant failed to appear at the scheduled Case Resolution Conference.

The applicant's representative later contacted the Tribunal, explaining her own absence due to a medical issue and stating that the applicant was out of the country and had not contacted her.

The Tribunal found this explanation inadequate for the applicant's failure to appear and provide evidence in support of his allegations.

The application was dismissed.

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

The applicant requested that the application be deferred pending the completion of related union grievance proceedings.

The respondent agreed to the deferral request.

The Tribunal granted the request and deferred the application, noting its general practice of deferring to concurrent grievance proceedings that raise the same human rights issues.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that two adjudicators of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board discriminated against her on the basis of mental disability in their written decision denying her compensation claim.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the adjudicators' statements in their decision were protected by the doctrine of judicial immunity, which prohibits legal proceedings against judicial actors based on their actions as decision-makers.