HRTO 2010

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing based on family status.

She subsequently filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to remove the housing cooperative as a respondent and add four individual board members alongside the existing individual respondent.

The Tribunal granted the request as unopposed.

The Tribunal also noted the original individual respondent's failure to file a Response and directed her to do so within seven days, warning of the consequences of failing to participate under Rule 5.5.

The Tribunal sought submissions on whether the name of the applicant, a minor, should be anonymized in its decisions and correspondence.

Both parties agreed that anonymization was appropriate.

The Tribunal ordered the use of initials for the applicant and his next friend, finding that the protection of the applicant's personal information and the potential stigma of disclosing his disabilities outweighed the principle of open justice.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sexual harassment, solicitation, and reprisal at a work site.

The respondents, a contractor and a union steward, requested early dismissal or to be removed as parties, arguing they were not the applicant's employer and the allegations did not establish a prima facie case against them.

The Tribunal directed a one-day hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed against either respondent or if the allegations could support a finding of discrimination or reprisal.

The applicant sought to lift a stay of her human rights application, which had been stayed pending a criminal investigation into her allegations of sexual harassment.

She provided an email from the Ottawa Police Service confirming the investigation was concluded without charges.

The respondents opposed lifting the stay, arguing the police email was unsatisfactory and that further information should be obtained.

The Tribunal found no reason to delay the matter further, lifted the stay, and directed the respondents to file a Response.

The applicant, a registered midwife, alleged discrimination on the basis of sex when her contract was not renewed after she requested maternity leave.

The respondents denied the allegations, stating the non-renewal was due to poor work performance, and noted a complaint had been filed with the College of Midwives of Ontario (CMO).

The respondents requested the Tribunal defer the application pending the CMO proceeding.

The Tribunal found deferral appropriate to avoid duplication of evidence and inconsistent findings, noting the applicant consented to the deferral.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision dismissing her human rights application for delay.

She argued that she was living with depression and incapable of making sound decisions.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that this was not a new fact that could not have been provided earlier, and that reconsideration is not an opportunity to repair deficiencies in the presentation of a case.

The applicant, who is incarcerated, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal.

She requested that the application be expedited because she would be released soon and feared further reprisal if the request was denied.

The Tribunal denied the request to expedite, finding that the remedies sought (monetary compensation, apology, posting Code cards) would not become moot after her release, and that the high threshold for urgency was not met.

The applicant filed a Request to Expedite her human rights application, citing financial stress from mortgage payments and her daughter's upcoming wedding.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that purely financial losses are common in employment discrimination applications and rarely constitute urgent circumstances requiring expedited processing.

The Tribunal also directed that the ground of 'record of offences' would be removed from the application unless the applicant provided submissions within ten days, as she had indicated she was not discriminated against because of a federal or provincial record of offences.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of the Tribunal's Case Resolution Conference Decision which dismissed his applications against his employer and union.

The applicant argued that some findings of fact were inconsistent with the conclusion that the union's decision not to proceed with his grievance was not discriminatory.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's request did not satisfy the requirements of Rule 25.5 of the Rules for Transitional Applications, as disagreement with findings of fact is not a basis for reconsideration.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant filed an incomplete application under section 53(5) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal sent multiple letters directing the applicant to perfect the application and warning that failure to do so could result in dismissal.

The applicant failed to respond to any of the Tribunal's correspondence.

The application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application, arguing that new evidence from a former colleague was potentially determinative.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the evidence was not potentially determinative and that the witness could and should have been called at the original hearing.

Reopening the hearing would undermine the Tribunal's process and the finality of its decisions.

The applicant, who is unable to drive due to a disability, filed a human rights complaint alleging that the respondent municipality's inter-municipal transit services were insufficient for her self-employment needs.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal deferred the respondent's request to dismiss the application for lack of a prima facie case to the hearing on the merits.

The Tribunal denied the applicant's request to add the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing as a party, finding no facts alleged against the Ministry and noting that adding them at this late stage would cause undue delay.

The Tribunal also clarified that the applicant did not need to formally amend her complaint to argue constructive discrimination under section 11 of the Code.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application after she failed to attend the scheduled hearing.

The applicant alleged she did not receive notice of the hearing, but the Tribunal found she had previously confirmed her availability and mailing address.

As the applicant failed to provide any supporting submissions or evidence for her request, the Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of disability against his employer, his union, and the WSIB.

The employer and union requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the application pending the conclusion of the applicant's appeal before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT).

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the WSIB and the union to file full written submissions on the deferral issue, and allowing the applicant to file a reply, before making a determination.

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

The Tribunal requested available dates for a rescheduled hearing, but the applicant failed to provide them.

After the applicant failed to respond to a subsequent notice warning that the application would be deemed abandoned, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed an Application alleging Contravention of Settlement.

The respondent failed to file a Response within the required 14 days.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent of the consequences of failing to respond and granting a final 10-day extension to file a Response before proceeding without further notice.

The applicant filed an Application for Contravention of Settlement alleging a breach of minutes of settlement from 2002.

The respondent submitted that no signed agreement existed.

The Tribunal previously directed the applicant to provide a signed copy of the settlement agreement.

The applicant failed to do so.

The Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction under section 45.9 of the Human Rights Code because there was no evidence of a settlement signed by the parties and approved by the Commission.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by a labour arbitrator in the handling and settlement of her grievance.

The respondent arbitrator argued the application was outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction due to judicial immunity.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the applicant to provide written submissions on whether the doctrine of judicial immunity protects the respondent from the application.

In an application under s. 53(5) of the Human Rights Code, a preliminary hearing was scheduled to determine whether the application should be dismissed based on a prior union settlement.

A summonsed physician witness requested to be excused, noting his evidence would not be helpful to the preliminary issue and attending would require cancelling a full day of appointments.

The Tribunal found the physician's evidence was not arguably relevant to the preliminary issue and stayed the summons.

Noting the applicant had identified ten physician witnesses, the Tribunal stayed all summonses to minimize undue hardship, pending further direction at the preliminary hearing.

The respondent in a human rights application requested an order requiring the applicant to produce documentation regarding out-of-pocket expenses, mitigation efforts, and medical evidence of psychological and physical damages.

The Tribunal ordered the production of documents related to expenses and mitigation efforts, as they were clearly relevant to the remedy sought.

The Tribunal declined to order the production of medical documents, noting the applicant had not disclosed an intent to rely on medical evidence.

The Tribunal also proposed bifurcating the upcoming hearing to deal with liability first and remedy later.