HRTO 2010

The applicant, through her litigation guardian, alleged that the respondent daycare refused her admission because of her association with her brother, who has a disability.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal provided procedural directions for the upcoming hearing.

The Tribunal ruled it would not hear evidence solely related to whether the brother experienced discrimination, as his separate application had already been dismissed for delay.

To ensure a fair, just, and expeditious process, the Tribunal directed the respondents to present their evidence first regarding why the applicant was removed from the waitlist, followed by the applicant's evidence.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of ethnic origin, marital status, sex, sexual orientation, and reprisal, arising from a co-worker's conduct.

The Tribunal found no evidence to support the reprisal claim.

Regarding the discrimination claims, the Tribunal concluded that the co-worker's actions, including brushing up against the applicant, were innocuous or the result of a personality clash in a confined workspace.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the allegations amounted to a general employment dispute with no nexus to the Human Rights Code.

The applicant requested to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending an ongoing grievance procedure.

She argued that the grievance process was excessively delayed, as she had not worked since December 2008.

The respondent opposed the request, noting that an arbitrator had been selected and an Independent Medical Examination scheduled.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the grievance process was still continuing and the arbitrator would have the power to deal with the issues raised in the application.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, claiming his employment was terminated due to medical absences.

The respondent sought early dismissal, arguing the applicant had signed a Full and Final Release.

The applicant acknowledged signing the release but contended he did not understand it due to limited literacy.

The Tribunal ordered a half-day preliminary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed on the basis of the release, noting that section 43(2) of the Code requires affording parties a chance to make oral submissions before finally disposing of an application.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision dismissing her discrimination claim, arguing that a witness had come forward with new evidence.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the witness's evidence was known to the applicant during the original hearing and could have been obtained earlier, thus failing to meet the criteria for reconsideration under the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on breach of settlement and reprisal, following his termination for sexual harassment.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance of the application was already dealt with in a labour arbitration.

The Tribunal found that the labour arbitration was a proceeding that appropriately dealt with the substance of the application, as the arbitrator fully addressed the issues, applied human rights principles, and provided adequate safeguards.

The application was dismissed.

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

After a scheduled mediation was cancelled, the Tribunal attempted to contact the applicant and her counsel multiple times to reschedule or determine the status of the application.

The applicant's counsel advised they were unable to contact the applicant.

Following a final warning letter to which no response was received, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it pursuant to Rule 5.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision to correct an administrative oversight where the applicant's file was inadvertently omitted from the list of files in a previous interim decision (Lawson v. Ontario).

The Tribunal confirmed that this application regarding the Special Diet Allowance will be treated in the same manner as the other section 34 applications.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of race during an arrest and detention by a police officer.

The respondents brought a motion to dismiss the application, arguing that applying the provincial Human Rights Code to an arrest under the federal Criminal Code would violate the constitutional division of powers.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the Code's prohibition on discrimination in services applies to policing and does not impair the core of the federal criminal law power or conflict with the Criminal Code under the doctrines of interjurisdictional immunity or paramountcy.

The applicant filed a request for reconsideration of an interim decision that removed three personal respondents from his human rights applications alleging disability discrimination and reprisal.

He also requested orders for the production of documents.

The Tribunal denied the reconsideration request, finding no basis under Rule 26.5, as the applicant had notice of the proceeding and the removal of personal respondents was consistent with established jurisprudence.

The Tribunal also dismissed the requests for document production as premature, noting that disclosure deadlines would be set once the matter was scheduled for a hearing.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application due to a four-year delay.

The applicant submitted extensive materials alleging a criminal conspiracy involving the respondent and various government agencies, including the adjudicator.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to present any new facts or evidence that could not have been reasonably obtained earlier, nor did he demonstrate that the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant's mother requested a reconsideration of an interim decision which determined she lacked the authority to act as litigation guardian for the applicant, and that only the Public Guardian and Trustee had such authority.

The Public Guardian and Trustee subsequently withdrew the applications.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that mere disagreement with the decision is not a basis for reconsideration and no compelling or extraordinary circumstances were presented.

The applicant filed a human rights application against a corporate and an individual respondent.

The corporate respondent filed an assignment in bankruptcy.

The Tribunal held that the proceedings against the corporate respondent were stayed pursuant to section 69 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The Tribunal also dismissed the application against the individual respondent because the applicant failed to provide a correct address for service, despite being given notice and an opportunity to do so.

The applicant sought to withdraw his human rights application filed under section 53(5) of the Human Rights Code.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant requested to consolidate a new section 34 application with existing transitional section 53(5) applications and filed a statement of additional facts including post-March 2008 allegations.

The respondents requested to strike the post-March 2008 allegations.

The Tribunal denied the consolidation request, finding it would be unfair to the respondents given the impending hearing date, and struck the post-March 2008 allegations from the statement of additional facts.

The Tribunal also granted the applicant's unopposed request to have a witness testify by telephone.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to have been filed more than one year after the last incident.

After receiving the applicant's written submissions explaining the delay, the Tribunal determined it was appropriate to schedule a teleconference hearing to receive oral submissions from the parties on whether the application should be dismissed for delay.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing on the basis that she had retained new counsel who needed time to prepare.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the respondent had known of the hearing dates for months and that a change of counsel does not normally constitute an extraordinary circumstance warranting an adjournment.

The applicant, through her litigation guardian, filed an application alleging employment discrimination based on disability.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss due to an apparent delay in filing.

Counsel for the applicant submitted that the delay was due to the applicant's disability rendering her incapable of discovering the facts, or alternatively, that the delay was incurred in good faith without substantial prejudice to the respondent.

The Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the application was barred by delay and directed that it be served on the respondent.

The applicant, acting as the estate trustee for her deceased son, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and disability.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision addressing whether the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal dismissed the first category of allegations relating to historical workplace harassment, finding them out of time with no reasonable explanation for the delay.

However, the Tribunal deferred its decision on the timeliness of the second category of allegations relating to the closure of the refinery, directing the respondents to file their responses.

The applicant, a probationary receptionist, alleged that her employment was terminated because of her age and place of origin (Scottish accent).

The respondent employer maintained that she was terminated due to performance issues, including using coarse language, impatience with customers, and miscommunicating messages.

The Tribunal found the employer's witnesses credible and noted that the workplace was multi-ethnic and the applicant's predecessor and successor were of similar age.

The Tribunal concluded there was no evidence that the termination was tainted by discrimination and dismissed the application.