HRTO 2010

The applicant filed a human rights application challenging a court judgment, the conduct of opposing counsel in a family law proceeding, and his former spouse.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide submissions on jurisdiction, which he failed to do.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the Code does not cover the outcomes of adjudicative processes, the relationship between a lawyer and an opposing party, or the relationship between former spouses.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by Legal Aid Ontario regarding the cancellation or denial of legal aid certificates.

The applicant subsequently filed a Request to Expedite Proceedings, citing the urgent need for legal representation in upcoming matters before other tribunals.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate truly urgent circumstances that would justify giving the application priority over other matters.

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

The corporate respondent and one personal respondent filed assignments in bankruptcy, staying the proceedings against them.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to advise whether he intended to lift the stay and to provide a contact address for the remaining personal respondent.

After granting an extension, the applicant failed to respond or request an opportunity to make oral submissions.

The Tribunal deemed the applicant to have waived his right to make oral submissions and dismissed the application against all respondents.

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

The facts of the application were also the subject of an ongoing union grievance proceeding.

Both the applicant and the corporate respondent agreed to defer the application.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process, noting the substantial overlap between the facts and human rights issues in both proceedings.

The Tribunal also noted that the applicant must provide accurate contact information for the individual respondent if the application is brought back on.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of creed regarding unreturned property upon his release from custody.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed for delay and failure to establish a prima facie case.

The Tribunal scheduled a conference call hearing to hear submissions on whether the application raises a prima facie violation of the Code and whether the delay in filing was incurred in good faith without substantial prejudice to the respondents.

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

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the Application to the grievance process and whether to grant the union's request to intervene.

The Tribunal decided to proceed with the Application, noting that no party sought deferral and it was unclear if the human rights issues were part of the grievance process or if the grievance would proceed to arbitration.

The union's request to intervene was granted.

The respondents raised preliminary issues regarding an application filed under the Human Rights Code.

They questioned whether the application was properly filed on behalf of the applicant and whether the applicant's representative was authorized to provide legal services.

The Tribunal found that the application was properly filed under section 34(5) of the Code with the applicant's consent.

The Tribunal also found that the applicant's representative, a family friend not charging a fee, fell under an exemption to the Law Society Act licensing requirements and could represent the applicant.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability regarding her accommodation and denial of a transfer.

The respondent requested an early dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that a previously withdrawn union grievance appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene and directed the union to provide submissions on whether the withdrawn grievance constitutes a proceeding that appropriately dealt with the matter before deciding the dismissal request.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race, sex, and sexual orientation in the provision of services by the police and the Ministry.

The Ministry requested an early dismissal, arguing the allegations did not establish differential treatment or a violation of the Code.

The Tribunal found that the Application and Reply, read together, contained allegations relating to the Code, particularly regarding sexual orientation, and denied the request for early dismissal.

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

The respondent requested early dismissal, arguing the applicant signed a full and final release and the matter was dealt with in another proceeding.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision scheduling a preliminary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed under s. 34(11) or s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, noting that s. 43(2) requires affording parties an opportunity to make oral submissions before final disposal.

The applicant, a former student, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by her former teacher and school board.

Before filing a Response, the respondents brought a Request for Order seeking to compel the applicant to provide written permission to access and disclose her Ontario Student Record (OSR), arguing it was necessary to defend against the allegations.

The Tribunal dismissed the request as premature, noting that the parties' obligations to disclose arguably relevant documents had not yet been triggered.

The respondents were ordered to file their Response, with leave to amend later if further disclosure made it necessary.

The complainant's litigation guardian requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing to obtain legal representation, alleging that documents provided by the respondent during cross-examination had been altered.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the litigation guardian had ample opportunity to review the documents, which had been disclosed months prior, and had previously agreed to proceed with the Commission's counsel presenting the case.

Granting the adjournment would unduly delay the expeditious resolution of the complaint.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his application for failing to allege facts constituting a reprisal under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not establish any of the criteria under Rule 26.5 for granting a reconsideration.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant, who has a disability and acknowledges being an alcoholic, alleged that police officers discriminated against her on the basis of disability when they apprehended her under the Mental Health Act.

She claimed they ignored her complaints of seizures, refused her a stretcher, and dragged her to an ambulance in handcuffs.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was combative and refused treatment, and that the officers' decision to apprehend and handcuff her was based on safety concerns rather than discriminatory reasons.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of marital status, claiming her relationship with her common law spouse was a factor in her layoff.

The respondent maintained the layoff was due to a business downturn and a belief that the applicant had leaked confidential information to a competitor associated with her spouse.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's decision was based on its belief that the applicant had disclosed confidential information, not on the identity of her spouse or her marital status.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested leave to withdraw her human rights application filed under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

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 and reprisal during his post-doctoral fellowship.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for delay, as the application appeared to be filed more than one year after the last incident.

Following a preliminary hearing, the Tribunal found that the respondents failed to establish at this stage that the application was out of time, as the applicant's allegations could potentially constitute a series of incidents ending within the limitation period.

The request to dismiss for delay was denied, with leave for the respondents to raise it again after the applicant's evidence.

The applicant's request to expedite the proceedings was also denied.

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

The Tribunal subsequently issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, directing the applicant to provide submissions.

The applicant failed to respond within the required time.

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

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability after being terminated during his probationary period.

The applicant had requested light duties following a workplace injury and was terminated immediately after making the request.

The Tribunal found that while the respondent had a non-discriminatory reason for termination (low production rate), the impetus for the termination was the request for light duties and the corresponding WSIB claim.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's disability was a factor in the termination and awarded $5,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

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 respond within the required time.

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