HRTO 2010

The applicant requested leave to withdraw their human rights application filed under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondent made no submissions on the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant, who alleged she was terminated while on maternity leave due to a subsequent pregnancy, requested that her human rights application be expedited under Rule 21.

She argued that advancing pregnancy would make participation physically difficult and emotionally stressful.

The respondent consented to the request.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the emotional stress and physical difficulty cited were not so uniquely urgent as to distinguish the case from others and warrant priority scheduling.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw her human rights application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondent consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

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 submissions within the required time.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

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

She had also filed a concurrent union grievance based on the same facts.

The union requested to intervene in the application, which the Tribunal granted.

The Tribunal then considered whether to defer the application pending the outcome of the grievance process.

Despite the parties' preference to proceed to mediation before the Tribunal to save costs, the Tribunal deferred the application, noting its practice of deferring to concurrent grievance proceedings to ensure the effective use of public resources.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a preliminary hearing to obtain further medical evidence and prepare for the hearing.

The respondent opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request and directed the parties to comply with disclosure rules.

The Tribunal also identified preliminary issues to be addressed at the upcoming hearing, including the applicant's request to amend the application, the applicability of sections 45.1 and 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, and potential delay issues under section 34(2).

The applicant requested that her human rights application be expedited due to prolonged delays in scheduling the hearing caused by the respondent's unavailability.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant's desire for closure and frustration with scheduling delays did not meet the high threshold of truly urgent circumstances required to expedite an application under the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw her application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code pursuant to Rule 10 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondent consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability and age, as well as reprisal.

The applicant requested that the Application be deferred pending the outcome of a related grievance proceeding, and the respondent supported the request.

The Tribunal granted the request and deferred the Application pending the determination of the grievance.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to be out of time and a civil proceeding had been commenced seeking a remedy for the same alleged infringement.

The applicant failed to provide written submissions in response to the Notice.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

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

The Tribunal previously directed the applicant to file submissions regarding its jurisdiction to consider the allegations, and subsequently issued a Case Assessment Direction warning that failure to respond would result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant failed to comply with both directions.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw her human rights application against Legal Aid Ontario pursuant to Rule 10 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondent consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw their human rights application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondents consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal.

The Tribunal had previously deferred the application pending the outcome of related transitional applications.

Following the dismissal of those transitional applications for delay, the Tribunal lifted the deferral, allowing the current application to proceed.

The Tribunal also issued case management directions regarding the applicant's request to add new respondents and the respondents' request to dismiss the application, ordering the exchange of further submissions.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondents.

The respondents failed to file a Response within the required 35-day period.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondents to file a Response within 10 days, along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice to them.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw her human rights application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondents consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant, a welder who self-identifies as Black, alleged that his employer discriminated against him on the basis of race and/or colour by denying him overtime, withholding wage increases, and ultimately laying him off.

The respondent maintained that the lay-off was due to business considerations and that the applicant lacked the broad skill set required to be retained over others.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's decisions regarding wage increases and lay-offs were based on performance and objective business needs, not race or colour.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a person with a disability, filed human rights applications against the City of Toronto and the Province of Ontario, alleging that the Ontario Building Code and the City's building permit and planning processes failed to mandate sufficient accessibility standards (specifically power door openers) in his new condominium.

The respondents brought a preliminary request to dismiss the applications for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal dismissed the applications, finding that it lacks jurisdiction to strike down or amend legislation such as the Ontario Building Code, and that the City's actions in issuing permits and entering into planning agreements were too remote and did not constitute discriminatory actions under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant requested to reactivate a human rights application that had been deferred pending the outcome of a related complaint before the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services (OCCPS).

The Tribunal dismissed the request as premature, noting that under Rule 19, a deferred application cannot typically be reactivated until the other proceeding has concluded, and the applicant identified no circumstances warranting an exception.

The respondent requested an order to dismiss the human rights application, arguing it did not raise an issue under the Code and was outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant alleged a bus driver scrutinized his student identification thoroughly because of his race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, citizenship, ethnic origin, and age.

The Tribunal dismissed the respondent's request, finding that the allegations of differential treatment based on prohibited grounds brought the matter within its jurisdiction, though it noted there remained a real question of whether a prima facie case of discrimination could be established at the merits hearing.