HRTO 2010

The Ontario Human Rights Commission filed an unopposed Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to withdraw from the proceeding without conditions or transition issues.

The Tribunal granted the request.

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking to dismiss the human rights application as abandoned because the applicant failed to provide available dates for a hearing despite multiple requests.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to indicate within 10 days whether she wishes to make oral submissions regarding the request to dismiss, failing which the application may be dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing for his transitional applications under section 53(5) of the Human Rights Code in order to seek consolidation with a newly filed section 34 application.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding it fair, just, and expeditious to allow the consolidation request to be addressed in the section 34 stream.

The Tribunal also deferred a request by the respondent union to reconsider a prior ruling allowing a witness to testify by telephone.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw her human rights application against the respondent.

The respondent made no submissions.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant filed human rights applications alleging failure to accommodate a work-related injury.

The respondent school board requested that the applications be deferred under s. 45 of the Human Rights Code because the issues were currently before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Tribunal (WSIAT) on appeal.

The Tribunal found sufficient overlap in the factual issues and concluded that deferring the applications pending the WSIAT outcome was the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging her employment was terminated due to racial bias.

The respondents brought a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking further particulars, production, and the removal of the personal respondent.

The Tribunal bifurcated the hearing to address liability before remedy, rendering the request for remedy particulars moot.

The Tribunal declined to order further particulars on liability, noting the applicant had already provided them.

The Tribunal also refused to remove the personal respondent, finding it premature given her direct involvement in the termination decision.

The applicant filed a human rights application regarding the requirement to submit a Vulnerable Sector Screening Application for a taxi licence.

At the Case Resolution Conference, the applicant requested an adjournment to obtain further documents from the respondents.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment because the applicant could not identify the requested documents or explain their relevance.

The applicant then requested to withdraw his application, which the Tribunal granted.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in services on the basis of disability after her doctor refused to write a specific letter of support for her workplace accommodation and subsequently terminated their doctor-patient relationship.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting the application did not appear to identify specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code.

After reviewing the applicant's written submissions, the Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that while the applicant self-identified as having a disability, she failed to link the doctor's refusal to provide the requested letter or the termination of the relationship to her disability or any other prohibited ground under the Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application on behalf of a minor.

The Tribunal previously granted a request to expedite the application and scheduled a mediation.

The respondent failed to file a Response within the required timeframe.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision ordering the respondent 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 respondent to have accepted the allegations.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a prior Tribunal decision that dismissed his application alleging discrimination in educational services on the basis of disability.

The applicant argued jurisdictional confusion, application of the wrong legal test, omission of evidence, and procedural unfairness.

The Tribunal found no error in its application of the duty to accommodate, noted that the new evidence was not determinative, and confirmed that the decision was not released to the public before being sent to the parties.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant, an ordained minister, alleged discrimination, harassment, and reprisal by the respondent church and a personal respondent regarding the handling of his proposal for a Mandarin-speaking ministry and comments made by a committee.

The Tribunal removed the personal respondent, finding no compelling reason to keep him as a party.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application under section 45.1, finding that an internal church investigation was not a 'proceeding' under the Code.

After hearing the applicant's evidence, the Tribunal dismissed the allegations regarding the handling of the proposal for failing to establish a prima facie case.

However, the Tribunal found that the applicant established a prima facie case of discrimination and reprisal regarding alleged comments made by the Pastoral Care Committee, requiring a response from the respondent.

The applicant and respondents jointly requested an adjournment of their scheduled hearing to address outstanding issues.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario denied the request, noting that its policies discourage adjournments for settlement discussions absent exceptional circumstances.

The Tribunal also directed the respondent to provide notice of the application to the applicant's employer, Bell Canada, as its interests may be affected, and extended the deadline for document disclosure.

The respondents in a human rights application alleging failure to accommodate the applicant's Parkinson's disease requested the production of medical records and Canada Pension Plan disability documents.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to produce clinical notes from three specific doctors for the period following his diagnosis, as well as his CPP file, finding them arguably relevant.

The Tribunal denied the respondents' request for an adjournment of the upcoming hearing, noting that the hearing could commence with the applicant's evidence and any need for an independent medical assessment could be addressed at that time.

The applicant alleged she was terminated because of her pregnancy.

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

The applicant argued she signed the release under duress due to her pregnancy and was misled about the circumstances of her termination.

The Tribunal found no evidence of duress or fraudulent misrepresentation, concluding the applicant freely entered into the settlement after obtaining legal advice.

The Application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The applicant tenant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of creed by his landlord, primarily relating to the construction of a Sukkah.

The respondents requested early dismissal.

The Tribunal found that the allegations pre-dating May 2007 were resolved by a prior settlement at the Human Rights Commission.

The remaining allegations regarding post-settlement conduct had been previously litigated and dismissed by the Landlord and Tenant Board.

Applying section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, the Tribunal dismissed the application as the substance had been appropriately dealt with in another proceeding.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision regarding next steps in multiple complaints challenging the Special Diet Allowance under Ontario's social assistance programs.

The Tribunal ordered a schedule for document disclosure and the provision of master lists of disabilities/conditions in issue.

Additionally, the Tribunal granted an interim extension of the suspension period for the respondent to provide special diet benefits for certain conditions, pending a full hearing on the respondent's request for a longer extension.

The applicant, a 12-year-old minor hockey player, filed an application alleging that residency rules requiring players to play within their residential zone or obtain waivers discriminate on the basis of sex and gender.

The applicant requested that the application be expedited due to upcoming hockey tryouts.

The Tribunal denied the request to expedite, finding that the circumstances did not meet the high threshold for urgency.

The Tribunal also directed the applicant to either file a Notice of Constitutional Question regarding the Code's definition of age or abandon the age discrimination claim.

The applicant, a former university student, filed an Application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and sought to expedite the proceedings.

She cited her age, concerns about future job prospects, and the need to repay student loans as urgent circumstances.

The Tribunal denied the Request to Expedite, finding that the applicant's concerns about job prospects were speculative and that financial concerns regarding student loans do not constitute urgent circumstances warranting priority over other matters.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to housing and services against a bank and an individual.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because banking is a federally regulated business.

The applicant did not provide submissions.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, as banking falls under federal jurisdiction pursuant to s. 91(15) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The applicant filed two human rights applications alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal against his union representative and his former employer, arising from alleged workplace zinc exposure.

The respondents requested that the applications be dismissed for delay or deferred pending the outcome of an ongoing union grievance and a WSIB appeal.

The Tribunal found that the grievance and WSIB processes would likely address some of the same factual and legal issues as the human rights applications.

To avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions, the Tribunal deferred the applications pending the completion of the other processes.