HRTO 2010

The respondent requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing less than a week before the hearing date, citing a conflicting audit committee meeting.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that a scheduled business meeting does not constitute an extraordinary circumstance warranting a late adjournment under the Tribunal's scheduling rules.

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 any submissions within the required time.

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

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

Following the termination of her employment, she filed a grievance.

The respondent requested the removal of personal respondents, and the applicant requested deferral of the application pending the grievance outcome.

Both requests were made on consent and granted by the Tribunal.

The applicant sought to file a transitional application under section 53(5) of the Human Rights Code.

The application was sent to the Tribunal by registered mail on June 22, 2009, but due to an unusually long transmission time by Canada Post, it was not received until July 3, 2009, missing the June 30, 2009 statutory deadline.

The Tribunal waived its strict receipt rule and applied the five-day deemed delivery rule for mailed documents.

The Tribunal deemed the application filed by June 27, 2009, and accepted it for processing.

The applicant in a human rights complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, reprisal, and sexual solicitation brought a request for the production of documents and directions regarding the hearing process.

The Tribunal ordered the production of 2006 Board of Directors meeting minutes, finding them arguably relevant, but denied requests for budget documents and certain emails.

The Tribunal also upheld solicitor-client privilege over communications between the Board and its acting chair.

Additionally, the Tribunal provided directions on the use of medical information, the scheduling of witnesses, and permitted the applicant to make a personal audio recording of the proceedings.

The applicants, two couples who were denied funding for in vitro fertilization treatments, filed human rights applications alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and sex.

They brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings to consolidate all four applications and have them heard together.

The respondent consented to consolidating the applications of each couple but objected to consolidating all four matters, arguing that the reasons for infertility differed.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding common issues of fact and law, a public interest in avoiding a multiplicity of proceedings, and no evidence of prejudice to any person.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal by her union and its representative.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, questioning whether the allegations fell within its jurisdiction under section 8 of the Human Rights Code.

After reviewing the applicant's submissions, which alleged the union failed to support her in a meeting with her employer due to her pending human rights application against the employer, the Tribunal concluded it was not plain and obvious that the matters were outside its jurisdiction.

The Tribunal directed that the application be processed and served on the respondents.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing date on the basis that he had only recently obtained a legal aid certificate to retain counsel, and that his disabilities (ADHD and panic disorder) prevented him from preparing for the hearing on his own.

The respondent opposed the request, citing Tribunal case law that an applicant's decision to retain counsel must be made in light of the scheduled hearing date.

The Tribunal distinguished the case law due to the applicant's late receipt of a legal aid certificate and the impact of his disabilities on his ability to prepare.

The adjournment was granted.

The corporate respondent brought a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to remove two individual respondents, Bruce Cappel and Andrea Margles, from the human rights application.

The applicant did not provide reply submissions.

Applying the factors from Persaud v. Toronto District School Board, the Tribunal found that the allegations related to the corporate respondent's duty to accommodate and there were no specific allegations against the individuals.

The Tribunal ordered the removal of the personal respondents.

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 requested leave to withdraw her 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 employment discrimination.

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to dismiss the application for delay.

The Tribunal determined it was appropriate to address the delay issue as a preliminary matter and directed the Registrar to schedule a teleconference to consider whether the application was filed within the one-year limitation period under s. 34(1) of the Human Rights Code, and if not, whether the Tribunal should exercise its discretion to accept the application under s. 34(2).

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability against a corporate respondent and a personal respondent.

Following previous interim decisions and a failure by the personal respondent to attend a scheduled hearing, the applicant filed a request to withdraw the application against the corporate respondent's contact person, but later revoked it, citing an unfulfilled verbal agreement.

The Tribunal ordered the matter to be rescheduled for a one-day hearing to address all outstanding issues and the merits of the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by the respondents, a consulting firm and its representative.

The applicant had been contracted by the firm to provide services to a federal agency dealing with Indian residential schools.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the applicant's work formed a vital, essential, and integral part of a core federal undertaking, and therefore fell under federal jurisdiction.

The respondent requested that the human rights application alleging failure to accommodate and reprisal be dismissed or deferred because the substance of the application was being dealt with by the WSIB.

The Tribunal found it had insufficient information to determine the request and directed the applicant to provide an update on the status of his WSIB appeal before making a determination.

The applicant filed an application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant verbally advised the Tribunal she wished to withdraw the application but failed to file a Form 9 or communicate further despite being warned.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant, a disabled woman, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in the provision of publicly funded health care services by the respondents.

The applicant also filed a Request to Expedite the proceedings, citing ongoing harm.

The Tribunal denied the Request to Expedite due to the applicant's delay in filing the application, noting the last alleged event occurred seven months prior.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found the application lacked clarity regarding how the Human Rights Code was violated and raised issues outside its jurisdiction, such as Charter and statutory violations.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to file a revised summary of allegations clarifying the specific Code violations.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application.

The applicant argued that the decision conflicted with established case law and involved a matter of general importance.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was merely attempting to re-argue his case and did not establish any conflict with established jurisprudence or any other factors outweighing the public interest in the finality of decisions.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

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

The respondents did not oppose 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 and record of offences, more than a year after the last alleged incident.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for delay.

The applicant argued the delay was incurred in good faith because she was unaware of her rights until her doctor informed her.

The Tribunal found this explanation unreasonable, as the applicant believed she was being treated unfairly at the time and had a year to investigate her rights.

The application was dismissed for delay.