HRTO 2010

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race and colour two years after the last incident.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued the delay was due to ignorance of his rights and despondency over his union's handling of his complaint.

The Tribunal found the applicant had reason to make enquiries about his rights and failed to establish that the delay was incurred in good faith.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on race, disability, and age regarding the denial of a taxicab licence in 1983 and an incident with a by-law enforcement officer in 2006.

The respondents requested dismissal of the application for delay.

The Tribunal found that the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, and therefore the delay was not incurred in good faith under section 34(2).

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application 12 days after the one-year limitation period expired.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

The applicant submitted that the delay was due to health concerns, a trip to Africa, and a court date.

The Tribunal found that the court date and trip did not constitute good faith reasons for the delay.

However, the Tribunal could not determine whether the health concerns justified the delay based on the brief mention in the submissions.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to file additional submissions regarding his health concerns before making a final determination on jurisdiction.

The applicant, who is not of Aboriginal heritage, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of race after the respondent, an Aboriginal friendship centre, did not hire him for several positions.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's preference for hiring Aboriginal persons who speak Cree and understand Aboriginal culture constituted a special program under section 14(1) of the Human Rights Code.

Furthermore, the successful candidates possessed superior educational, language, and cultural qualifications compared to the applicant.

The applications were dismissed.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application as abandoned after he failed to respond to a request for submissions.

The applicant explained that he was hospitalized and bed-ridden during the relevant period and did not receive the correspondence.

The Tribunal accepted this explanation as establishing extraordinary circumstances and granted the reconsideration.

The Tribunal further found that section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code did not apply to bar the application, as the applicant's amended civil claim removed all allegations of discrimination and sought damages only for wrongful dismissal and defamation.

The application was permitted to proceed.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the hearing because it required disclosure of materials from a third party, Bartimaeus, which had previously employed the applicant.

The Tribunal had previously ordered Bartimaeus to disclose the documents, but only a blank contract had been produced by the hearing date.

Finding that the missing documents went to the heart of the application and that proceeding without them would prejudice the parties, the Tribunal adjourned the hearing and directed the applicant to obtain and disclose the documents or advise if the third party failed to produce them.

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

The respondents made no submissions on the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw his human rights application against the respondent pursuant to Rule 10 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondent made no submissions.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

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

The respondent made no submissions on the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

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

The respondent made no submissions on the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant, who had a pardoned criminal record, was offered a position as an Addictions Interventions Instructor by the corporate respondent.

The offer was rescinded the next day after the respondent learned of his criminal history.

The Tribunal found that the corporate respondent discriminated against the applicant on the basis of his record of offences, contrary to section 5(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The corporate respondent was ordered to pay $15,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and $24,375 for lost wages, and to develop a future compliance plan.

The personal respondent was found not liable as she acted within the scope of her duties.

The applicant alleged that the WSIB discriminated against him on the basis of disability by coercing him to sign a return-to-work mediation agreement and by issuing discriminatory decisions regarding his entitlement to benefits and a Labour Market Re-entry Program.

The respondent requested dismissal on the basis that the alleged acts do not fall within the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that the term 'services' in section 1 of the Human Rights Code does not include the content and reasons of a WSIB claims adjudicator decision or a mediated agreement.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed human rights complaints alleging the respondent daycare failed to accommodate her son's disability-related behavioural issues, resulting in his withdrawal from the daycare, and subsequently denied her daughter admission due to association with her brother.

The Tribunal held an interim hearing to determine if the son's application was timely.

The Tribunal found the last incident occurred when the son was withdrawn in November 2006, but the complaint was not filed until January 2008, beyond the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

Finding no good faith reason for the delay, the Tribunal dismissed the son's application as out of time, while allowing the daughter's application to proceed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on perceived disability regarding her literacy skills.

The respondents requested early dismissal because the applicant had previously signed a settlement agreement containing a full and final release of all claims, including human rights claims.

The applicant argued she did not understand the agreement and signed under duress.

The Tribunal found that the agreement was read and explained to the applicant, she understood its terms, and she was not under duress when she signed it.

The Tribunal concluded that proceeding with the application would be an abuse of process and dismissed it.

The applicant alleged that the respondent Children's Aid Society and its workers discriminated against him on the basis of sex and ethnic origin during a child protection investigation involving his family.

The respondents brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the application for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that their interactions with the applicant did not constitute a 'service' under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the respondents were providing services to the children, not the applicant, and dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application and subsequently filed a Request to Withdraw the Application against all parties.

The respondents argued the application should be dismissed due to the applicant's repeated attempts to litigate the same matter in different venues.

The Tribunal granted the Request to Withdraw, finding no basis to dismiss the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability 19 months after the last alleged incident.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed for delay under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued that the delay was due to his ignorance of the law and the Tribunal process.

The Tribunal found that ignorance of the law without a reasonable explanation for failing to make timely inquiries does not constitute good faith.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and ethnic origin by several individual respondents following a workplace back injury.

At the close of the applicant's case, the respondents requested a dismissal on the basis that no prima facie case of discrimination had been established.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical restrictions were accommodated at all times and that the actions of the individual respondents did not constitute discriminatory treatment.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and creed regarding the dietary accommodations provided while he was incarcerated.

A hearing was scheduled, but neither the applicant nor his counsel attended, nor did they request an adjournment.

The respondent's counsel attended and informed the Tribunal that the applicant had been arrested earlier that week.

Because the applicant failed to attend or communicate with the Tribunal, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

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

She subsequently filed a Request to Expedite the Application, citing financial hardship due to the impending end of her short-term disability benefits and concerns about returning to a poisoned work environment.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that purely financial losses and the possibility of ongoing harassment upon return to work did not meet the high threshold for urgency required to expedite the proceeding.

The Tribunal also noted the applicant's delay in filing the application and the request.