HRTO 2010

The applicant requested leave to withdraw her 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The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.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 sought to amend her transitional human rights application to include events that occurred after her original complaint was filed with the Commission.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that transitional applications are restricted to the subject matter of the original complaint, and directed the applicant to file a new application for post-complaint events.

The Tribunal also directed that the hearing be bifurcated, with evidence regarding the individual allegations to be heard first, before assessing the relevance of broader systemic evidence.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to add a personal respondent, compel witnesses to testify, and order the production of documents and information regarding the racial composition of the workplace.

The Tribunal dismissed the requests, finding no basis to add the personal respondent, noting the applicant could issue summonses for witnesses, and concluding the respondent had already provided the requested documents and information.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

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, including the possibility of the Tribunal proceeding without further notice.

The Tribunal granted the respondent 10 days to file a response along with an explanation for the delay.

The applicant filed a human rights application but failed to attend a scheduled mediation.

The respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal subsequently warned the applicant that failure to respond to its correspondence would result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant did not respond.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal.

The proceeding was previously stayed due to an order under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act protecting the respondent.

The applicant notified the Tribunal that the respondent had emerged from bankruptcy protection and requested that his application be made active.

The Tribunal found that the stay was no longer in effect and directed the respondent to file a Response within 35 days.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision consolidating four human rights applications against the same respondent.

Given the significant overlap in facts and issues, and because the parties did not consent to mediation, the Tribunal directed that the matters be heard together and a Notice of Hearing be issued.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding requested permission to call her treating physician as an additional witness after concluding her evidence.

The respondent objected.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that calling the witness would unduly delay the proceeding and was unnecessary.

The Tribunal accepted the applicant's oral evidence that she had a disability at the material times, making the physician's testimony not probative at this stage, without prejudice to the applicant's ability to call the witness in reply.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of family status, claiming the respondent failed to accommodate her need to be absent from work to care for her husband.

In an earlier interim decision, the Tribunal invited submissions on whether to defer the application pending potential Ministry of Labour proceedings.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed or deferred indefinitely due to the applicant's failure to file submissions or a Reply.

The Tribunal found no evidence of an ongoing proceeding that would warrant deferral and held that the applicant's failure to file submissions was not a basis to dismiss the application.

The respondent's requests were denied and the application was ordered to proceed.

The applicant sought to deliver a human rights application to the personal respondents after the institutional respondent closed.

While one respondent was successfully served, the other allegedly evaded service, with the police returning registered mail to the applicant.

The Tribunal found the applicant made all reasonable efforts to deliver the material and that the respondent was deliberately refusing to receive it.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to send the application by courier and deemed it received within five days.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer consideration of the application pending the resolution of a concurrent grievance proceeding.

As both the applicant and the respondents agreed to the deferral, and the union did not file submissions, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the outcome of the grievance proceeding.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination more than 13 months after the incident.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss as the application appeared to be outside the one-year limitation period under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant failed to provide submissions explaining the delay.

The Tribunal concluded it could not find the delay was incurred in good faith under section 34(2) and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in employment against the City of Toronto, the Toronto Professional Fire Fighters' Association, and various individuals.

The Association and its president sought to be removed as respondents.

The Tribunal granted their request, finding that the union's mere participation in the accommodation process or failure to take the same position as the employee does not constitute a Code violation.

The Tribunal also removed three personal respondents, two on consent and one due to a lack of substantive allegations, but declined to remove one personal respondent against whom specific allegations of personal misconduct were made.

The respondents requested to add the Teamsters Local Union No. 230 as a party respondent to the human rights application, arguing that the applicant made allegations against the union.

The union objected, stating the allegations related to its duty of fair representation, which falls under the Labour Relations Act.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant alleged discriminatory conduct by a union steward, these allegations were independent of the claims against the named respondents.

The Tribunal declined to add the union as a party respondent against the applicant's choice.

The respondent school board filed a Request for an Order during Proceedings seeking to compel the applicant to consent to the disclosure and use of his Ontario Student Record (OSR) so that it could file its Response to the human rights application.

The applicant objected.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding it premature to order disclosure of the OSR before pleadings were closed and regular disclosure obligations were triggered.

The respondent was directed to file its Response and could seek leave to amend it later if necessary.

The respondent filed a Request for Order during Proceedings seeking to dismiss the applicant's transitional human rights application for being filed after the June 30, 2009 statutory deadline.

The applicant had submitted an incomplete application form by fax on June 29, 2009, missing the respondent's name and the original complaint.

The Tribunal exercised its discretion to waive the technical filing requirements, finding that the respondent suffered no prejudice as they had been aware of the complaint since 2005.

The Tribunal concluded the application was made by the statutory deadline and directed the respondent to file a response.

The applicant filed an application under s. 53(5) of the Human Rights Code alleging the respondent failed to offer her employment after she recovered from a work-related injury.

The respondent sought early dismissal due to technical deficiencies, or alternatively, deferral pending a related proceeding before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT).

The Tribunal waived the technical deficiencies but deferred the application, finding that the issues before the WSIAT regarding the obligation to re-employ were sufficiently similar to warrant deferral to avoid inconsistent decisions.

The respondents in a human rights application regarding alleged discriminatory school discipline requested an order requiring the applicant's litigation guardian to consent to the disclosure and use of the applicant's Ontario Student Record (OSR).

The Tribunal found that it had the power to order the applicant to provide written permission to overcome the statutory privilege in the Education Act.

Given that the applicant relied on documents from the OSR and did not object to the request, the Tribunal ordered the litigation guardian to provide written permission for the disclosure of OSR documents from September 2004 to the present.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw her human rights application pursuant to section 45.9 of the Human Rights Code and Rule 10 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondents made no submissions.

The Tribunal granted the request and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sex discrimination in employment against the corporate and personal respondents.

The corporate respondent filed a Response, but the personal respondent did not.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the personal respondent to file a Response by March 31, 2010, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice to her and deem her to have accepted the allegations.