HRTO 2010

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking document production, statistical data, and orders requiring specific individuals to testify or be added as parties.

The Tribunal dismissed the requests, finding no basis to add a party, noting that the respondent had already provided the requested documents and data, and observing that the respondent already intended to call the requested witnesses.

The Tribunal advised the applicant that he is responsible for summoning any additional witnesses he wishes to call.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex and disability.

The respondents raised preliminary issues seeking early dismissal, arguing the complaints were filed out of time and had been appropriately dealt with through the grievance process.

The Tribunal dismissed the sex discrimination complaint due to an unexplained four-year delay.

However, the Tribunal allowed the disability discrimination complaint to proceed, finding the allegations constituted a series of incidents within the time limit.

The Tribunal also held that the withdrawal of grievances by the applicant's union without her consent did not mean the matter had been appropriately dealt with under the Code.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The respondents sought early dismissal of the application.

The Tribunal dismissed the pre-2007 allegations due to delay, finding the applicant did not establish good faith.

The Tribunal also struck new allegations from 2009, as they were not part of the original complaint.

However, the Tribunal refused to dismiss the 2007 allegations under section 45.1 of the Code, finding that while the related grievances were settled, the settlements did not deal with the substance of the human rights claims.

Finally, the Tribunal removed the personal respondents as parties because the organizational respondent accepted liability.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in the provision of services on the basis of disability.

The personal respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing due to an unspecified scheduling conflict.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the hearing dates had been set months in advance and the respondent failed to provide sufficient details to establish extraordinary circumstances warranting an adjournment.

The applicant filed an application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code and subsequently requested that the proceedings be expedited because she was moving out of Ontario for work.

The respondent opposed the request, noting the lack of factual support and the applicant's delay in filing the application.

The Tribunal dismissed the request to expedite, finding that the applicant's reasons were too vague, lacked detail regarding her move, and failed to explain why she could not participate from outside Ontario.

Furthermore, the applicant had delayed filing her application for over seven months without explanation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the respondent university regarding admission to a Master's program.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed as it was filed more than one year after the last alleged incident.

The applicant claimed the delay was in good faith because she only discovered the discrimination later through freedom of information requests.

The Tribunal found credibility issues in the pleadings regarding when the applicant discovered the alleged discrimination and scheduled a half-day oral hearing to determine the preliminary issue of timeliness.

The corporate respondent requested the removal of three of its employees as personal respondents to a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing.

The applicant consented to the removal of one but opposed the removal of the other two.

Applying the factors from Persaud, the Tribunal found no compelling reason to continue the proceeding against the individuals, as their alleged conduct occurred within the scope of their employment duties and the corporate respondent could provide a complete remedy if an infringement was found.

The request was granted and the three individuals were removed as personal respondents.

The applicant, a courier driver, filed a human rights application against her employer, a national courier service.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, arguing it is a federally regulated transportation undertaking.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the respondent engages in transportation works extending beyond the province, placing it under federal jurisdiction pursuant to s. 92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

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

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent of the consequences of failing to participate under Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, and granted the respondent seven days to file a Response along with an explanation for the delay.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the respondents with respect to employment and contracts, including incidents involving conservation officers.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal dismiss or defer the application because the respondent Ministry was concurrently prosecuting the applicant in the Ontario Court of Justice for charges related to the same incidents.

The applicant consented to the deferral.

The Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application pending the conclusion of the proceedings before the Ontario Court of Justice to avoid duplication of evidence and inconsistent findings.

The applicant, a bilingual relocation consultant, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, ethnic origin, and reprisal.

She claimed she was hospitalized for severe anxiety, instructed not to speak French in the office, harassed by co-workers, and ultimately terminated due to her ethnic origin and disability.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to establish she had a disability within the meaning of the Code.

The Tribunal also found no evidence of discrimination or harassment based on ethnic origin, noting the employer's request to use English in internal meetings was a reasonable courtesy to unilingual staff.

The application was dismissed, as the termination was based on performance issues and there was no evidence of reprisal.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the grounds of race and citizenship by the respondent, a dairy farm owner.

The Tribunal found that the last incident of alleged discrimination occurred more than one year before the application was filed.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's delay in filing was not incurred in good faith, as she had received legal advice and made a strategic decision to hold onto the evidence of discrimination rather than pursuing it promptly.

The application was dismissed as statute-barred.

The applicant filed an application alleging sexual harassment and sexual solicitation in employment.

During the hearing, the applicant left abruptly, citing a migraine, while still under cross-examination.

She subsequently failed to comply with Tribunal directions to request a medical adjournment by a specified deadline and failed to attend the continuation of the hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the application due to her failure to attend, noting that her evidence was incomplete and she had not complied with previous production orders.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of a human rights application pending the conclusion of an internal complaint process and anticipated business changes.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that an internal complaint process is not a concurrent legal proceeding that risks inconsistent findings of fact or law.

The Tribunal also raised the issue of whether the corporate respondent, a telecommunications enterprise, falls under federal jurisdiction and directed the parties to provide submissions on this jurisdictional question.

The applicant filed an application alleging the respondent unfairly withheld monies owing to him in the context of employment and contracts, but failed to identify a prohibited ground of discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision noting it does not have general power to decide fairness, only alleged discrimination.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide written submissions explaining the connection between his allegations and the prohibited grounds in the Code before proceeding further.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal in his employment at a radio station.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that the respondent appeared to be a federally regulated business.

After receiving submissions from the applicant, the Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the matter fell under federal jurisdiction and directed that the application be served on the respondents.

The applicant's request to expedite the proceedings was dismissed as the circumstances did not meet the high threshold for urgency.

The applicant, a nursing student who was allegedly dismissed from his program after receiving a failing grade, filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex and race.

He also filed a Request to Expedite and a Request for Interim Relief.

The Tribunal found that the application lacked sufficient particulars to ascertain the basis of the discrimination claim.

The Tribunal denied both requests due to insufficient information to determine urgency or merit, and directed the applicant to provide detailed facts supporting his claim within 10 days.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal regarding her employment termination.

The respondent requested early dismissal, arguing the matter was resolved through a union grievance and minutes of settlement containing a full and final release.

The applicant claimed the settlement was signed under duress.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application immediately, noting that section 43(2) of the Code requires an opportunity for oral submissions before final disposal, and scheduled a preliminary hearing to address the effect of the settlement and the timeliness of the application.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of race, ancestry, and disability after his firearms were seized and his firearms licence was revoked.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed requests to add, remove, and rename parties.

The Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services was added as a respondent on consent, and the City of Ottawa and Chief Firearms Officer were removed.

The Tribunal declined to remove the personal respondent at this preliminary stage, finding it premature to determine whether the institutional respondents would be solely liable for her actions.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application for lack of jurisdiction and as a duplicate proceeding under section 53(8) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant alleged ongoing hate crimes, collusion, and a conflict of interest by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant merely restated previous arguments and failed to establish any of the threshold criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26, such as new evidence or a conflict with established jurisprudence.