HRTO 2010

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, nearly 22 months after the last alleged incident.

The applicant argued that the delay was justified because she was relying on her union to address the issue through the grievance process.

The Tribunal found that waiting for other legal proceedings to conclude does not generally constitute a valid explanation for delay.

The Tribunal held that the applicant failed to establish that the delay was incurred in good faith and dismissed the application as being outside its jurisdiction under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondent requested early dismissal of the human rights application under s. 45.1 of the Code, arguing that an Employment Standards Officer had already appropriately dealt with the substance of the applicant's claim regarding her termination while on maternity leave.

The Tribunal noted that it cannot dismiss an application without affording the parties an opportunity to make oral submissions.

Accordingly, the Tribunal directed the Registrar to schedule a half-day hearing to consider the s. 45.1 request and directed the parties to be prepared to make submissions on whether the Employment Standards Officer's determination constitutes a 'proceeding'.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that the respondent cruise company discriminated against him on the basis of marital status and age by offering a 50% discount only to passengers sharing a cabin.

The applicant, who wished to travel alone and pay the single supplement, argued that older and unmarried individuals are less likely to have a travelling companion.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no connection between travelling alone and the prohibited grounds of marital status or age.

The Tribunal noted that the discount was available to anyone willing to share a cabin, regardless of their relationship to the other occupant.

The applicant filed an application with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario on June 30, 2009.

The Tribunal inquired with the Ontario Human Rights Commission regarding the status of the underlying complaint.

The Commission confirmed that the applicant had submitted a complaint form in June 2008 but it was closed as withdrawn in July 2008 and never formally filed.

The Tribunal found that because no complaint was filed with the Commission prior to June 30, 2008, it lacked jurisdiction to accept the application under the transitional provisions of section 53(5) of the Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed.

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

The Tribunal notified the applicant that the application was incomplete because no Statement of Delivery was provided and contact information for the personal respondent was missing.

The applicant was given multiple opportunities to correct the defects and was advised of the right to make oral submissions before dismissal.

The applicant failed to respond or correct the defects.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

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

The employer requested an adjournment of the hearing regarding its preliminary objection on the basis of delay, arguing it needed the medical notes of the applicant's doctors before cross-examining them.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, finding that the employer failed to provide legal authority, did not comply with the Tribunal's rules for adjournment requests, and that denying the adjournment would not result in unfairness.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding requested that her medical records, filed by the respondent hospital, be suppressed under section 35(9) of the Mental Health Act, and that her identity be anonymized.

The Tribunal found that section 35(11) of the Mental Health Act applied, which permits disclosure in proceedings commenced by a patient relating to their assessment or treatment.

The Tribunal directed the return of the records to the respondent for now, establishing a process for the applicant to object to specific documents once the respondent files its intended reliance documents.

The interim anonymization order was continued pending further resolution of the medical records issue.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the ground of record of offences.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, directing the applicant to provide submissions clarifying how she experienced discrimination.

The applicant failed to provide submissions within the required time.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging reprisal by the respondent college for previous complaints, citing unsuccessful job applications over 20 years and his 1985 termination.

The respondent sought to dismiss significant elements of the application.

The Tribunal dismissed allegations relating to previously dismissed complaints under s. 53(8) of the Code, and dismissed allegations contradicting a prior arbitration award regarding his termination as an abuse of process.

The Tribunal also dismissed allegations older than one year prior to the complaint due to delay.

The remaining allegations regarding recent job applications will proceed to a hearing on whether they establish a prima facie case.

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

The Tribunal notified the applicant that the application was missing the underlying Commission complaint and a Statement of Delivery, and gave him 21 days to correct the defects.

After the applicant failed to respond, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, offering the applicant an opportunity to make oral submissions.

The applicant did not respond.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to dismiss the application on grounds of adjudicative immunity, lack of jurisdiction, and delay.

The Tribunal found that the jurisdictional issues could not be determined on the written materials alone and scheduled a half-day teleconference hearing to consider whether the application should be dismissed.

The applicant filed a Request for Order to remove Doug McDonald and Geri McDonald as individual respondents.

The respondents consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted the order, noting its case law advising against the unnecessary naming of individual respondents, and amended the style of cause accordingly.

The applicant filed transitional applications under s. 53(5) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal ruled that the applicant could not amend her applications to include new allegations of racial discrimination, as the proposed amendments extended beyond the subject-matter of the original complaints filed with the Commission and had never been formally filed or served on the respondents.

The applicant subsequently requested an adjournment of the hearing to await the outcome of an Ombudsman complaint regarding missing documents from the Commission's file.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, finding that the missing documents were either irrelevant or that the applicant had failed to take timely steps to seek their production through the Tribunal's processes, and thus no extraordinary circumstances justified an adjournment.

The respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to dismiss the human rights application on the basis that the applicant failed to provide sufficient particulars to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding it was not plain and obvious at this preliminary juncture that the allegations should be dismissed.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to produce a summary of specific allegations against the remaining respondent, noting that failure to plead facts with sufficient particularity could prevent the applicant from introducing evidence at the hearing.

The applicant filed two related human rights applications.

The respondent EMS-Essex Windsor requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because its principal witness would be out of the province.

The Tribunal found the request was made in a timely fashion and, noting no objections or prejudice to the other parties, granted the adjournment.

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

One of the respondents requested the Tribunal dismiss the application for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the allegations did not connect to a Code ground.

The Tribunal found the applicant's allegations described a toxic work relationship but did not assert a disability at the time of the alleged ill-treatment, nor did the reprisal claim clearly relate to enforcing a Code right.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide further particulars and submissions on jurisdiction before making a final determination.

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

The respondents made no submissions on the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, specifically regarding the respondent's failure to accommodate his workplace injury.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the outcome of a concurrent union grievance dealing with the same facts and issues.

The Tribunal granted the request to defer, finding a significant overlap of facts and human rights issues between the grievance proceeding and the application, and noting the grievance arbitrator's responsibility to implement and enforce the Code.

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled Case Resolution Conference.

The Tribunal waited 45 minutes and confirmed the applicant had notice of the hearing.

In the absence of the applicant and any evidence to support the allegations, the Tribunal found the application to be abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw their human rights application 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.