HRTO 2010

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination in his employment termination.

The respondent sought early dismissal on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release in exchange for a severance package.

The applicant argued he signed the release under duress.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's shock at losing his job and financial obligations did not amount to duress, especially since he had eight days to consider the offer and obtained independent legal advice before signing.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer the application because the applicant's union had filed 17 grievances on her behalf raising the same human rights issues, which were referred to arbitration.

The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the application and the concurrent grievance proceedings.

The application was deferred pending the completion of the grievance process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, sex, family status, and reprisal regarding a medical leave.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because the applicant's union had filed a grievance based on the same facts and human rights issues, which had been referred to arbitration.

The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the application and the grievance and deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process, noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority to enforce human rights obligations.

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

She had also filed a concurrent grievance under her collective agreement regarding the same dismissal.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the grievance process.

Finding substantial overlap between the facts, remedies, and human rights issues in both proceedings, the Tribunal deferred the application to allow the grievance arbitration to proceed first.

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

The respondents failed to file a Response despite being issued a Notice of Application on two occasions.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondents to file a Response by March 9, 2010, along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant filed a human rights application against a corporate and a personal respondent.

The Notice of Application sent to the personal respondent was returned as unknown.

The Tribunal directed the corporate respondent to provide the personal respondent's current or most recent mailing address to facilitate service.

The applicant requested that the Tribunal conduct an inquiry into the respondents' conduct, alleging that mail from the respondents was arriving unsealed or opened.

The applicant also requested a suspension of his obligation to deliver and file materials for an upcoming Case Resolution Conference.

The Tribunal dismissed both requests, finding that an inquiry under section 44 of the Human Rights Code was not required as the allegations did not relate to the merits of the application, and that the mail issues did not affect the applicant's ability to deliver his materials.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to add an employment agency as a respondent to his human rights application alleging discrimination on the grounds of family status and disability.

The respondent did not object to adding the agency and claimed the applicant was an employee of the agency.

The Tribunal granted the request to add the agency as a respondent and ordered the respondents to disclose the name of the agency employee who liaised between the applicant and the respondent.

The applicant, through his next friend, brought a human rights application alleging discrimination at the Robert Land Academy.

The applicant sought to add the Academy as a respondent, which was granted on consent.

The individual respondents, the Headmaster and his wife, sought to be removed as parties.

The Tribunal granted their removal, noting that their actions fell within the normal course of employment and the Academy accepted vicarious liability.

Finally, the Tribunal addressed whether the next friend could continue representing the applicant, who had reached the age of majority, and ordered the applicant to file a consent form if he wished the representation to continue.

The respondent school board filed a Request for an Order during Proceedings seeking to compel the applicant's next friend to provide written permission to use and disclose the applicant's Ontario Student Record (OSR) before filing its Response.

The Tribunal found the request premature, noting that preliminary objections regarding disclosure should generally not be brought prior to pleadings being filed.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to file its Response and directed the applicant's next friend to state in writing whether she consents to the OSR's use.

The respondent school board requested an order compelling the applicant's next friend to consent to the disclosure of the applicant's Ontario Student Record (OSR) so it could prepare its Response to a human rights complaint.

The Tribunal declined to make the order at this preliminary stage, noting that the parties' obligations to disclose arguably relevant documents had not yet been triggered.

The respondent was ordered to file its Response, with leave to amend later if necessary, and the applicant's next friend was directed to state in writing whether she consents to the OSR's disclosure.

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

The respondent did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend her human rights application and seek further document production just two weeks before the scheduled hearing.

The proposed amendments included allegations regarding a failure to investigate a prior complaint and new allegations of age discrimination in recent job competitions.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding it was unjustifiably late and would cause significant prejudice to the respondent by necessitating an adjournment.

The Tribunal noted the applicant could file a separate application for the recent job competitions.

The applicant filed a human rights application against a corporate respondent and eight personal respondents.

The applicant subsequently requested to remove seven of the personal respondents, which the respondents did not oppose.

The Tribunal granted the request.

The applicant's union also requested to intervene in the proceedings.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene, noting its interest in the issues raised, with the extent of participation to be determined at mediation or hearing.

The applicant filed human rights applications against his former employer, a manager, his union, and union counsel, alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation and reprisal.

The respondents requested dismissal at a preliminary hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the employer and manager under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, finding the substance of the allegations had been appropriately dealt with in a prior labour arbitration proceeding, despite the applicant's withdrawal from that process.

The Tribunal also dismissed the application against the union and its counsel, finding the allegations related to the union's representation and collective agreement administration, which fall under the jurisdiction of the Ontario Labour Relations Board and do not establish a prima facie violation of the Code.

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

The respondent consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant requested reconsideration of an interim decision that granted an adjournment and removed an individual respondent from the application.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, noting that under Rule 26.1, only final decisions can be reconsidered.

The only final aspect of the interim decision was the removal of the individual respondent, but the applicant's reconsideration request failed to provide specific reasons under Rule 26.5 to challenge that removal or explain the failure to respond to the original request.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the University of Ottawa and 12 individual respondents regarding academic matters.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss against 11 of the individual respondents because the application failed to identify specific acts of discrimination committed by them.

Finding that the applicant's written submissions failed to explain how these individuals breached the Code, the Tribunal ordered that the 11 individuals be removed as respondents to the application.

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

A hearing was scheduled, but the applicant failed to attend and did not provide any explanation or request an adjournment.

The applicant had also failed to comply with previous Tribunal directions.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code alleging discrimination in employment on the ground of disability.

The respondents requested the removal of the personal respondent, which the applicant did not oppose.

The union requested intervenor status because the application raised issues relating to the collective agreement, which was also unopposed.

The Tribunal granted both requests, removing the personal respondent and granting the union intervenor status.