HRTO 2011

The union filed a Request to Intervene in a human rights application brought by a member of its bargaining unit against the employer.

The Tribunal noted that a union nearly always has an interest in such applications, particularly where collective agreement language is at issue.

The Request to Intervene was granted and the union was added as an intervenor.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of family status.

The respondents filed a Request for Summary Hearing.

The applicant failed to respond to the request and failed to comply with the Tribunal's directions regarding the exchange of disclosure materials and witness lists.

After being warned that failure to comply could result in dismissal, the applicant still did not respond.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, claiming the respondent failed to accommodate her medical restrictions between May 2007 and October 2008.

The respondent brought a preliminary request to dismiss the application for delay, as it was filed in July 2010, well beyond the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued the delay was incurred in good faith because she was pursuing internal negotiations for compensation until August 2009.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's refusal to pay compensation in August 2009 was not a new incident of discrimination, and the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the subsequent 11-month delay in filing the application.

The application was dismissed for delay.

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

A summary hearing was scheduled by conference call to allow the applicant to clarify his allegations.

The applicant failed to call in for the hearing and did not contact the Tribunal to explain his absence.

Pursuant to Tribunal Rule 3.13, the adjudicator deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed an application alleging reprisal in the area of housing against her landlord.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application failed to identify specific acts of discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant's submissions detailed disputes over repairs and health concerns but did not link the alleged reprisal to any attempt to enforce Code rights.

The Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment against several individuals who were her supervisors, but did not name her corporate employer.

The Tribunal proposed adding the employer, Dove Foods Ltd., as a respondent.

The employer objected, arguing that the applicant only had direct dealings with the individually named store management.

Applying the test from Smyth v. Toronto Police Services, the Tribunal found that given the employment relationship, the nature of the allegations, and the relief sought, it was appropriate to add Dove Foods Ltd. as a respondent.

The employer was directed to file a full response.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code but failed to comply with the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure regarding document disclosure and witness lists.

Despite two Case Assessment Directions ordering compliance and warning of potential dismissal, the applicant failed to file the required materials or confirm her intention to proceed.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code alleging discrimination in employment more than one year after the last incident.

A Notice of Intent to Dismiss was issued due to the delay.

The applicant's counsel submitted that the delay was caused by their own inadvertence and not the applicant's conduct.

The Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the delay was not incurred in good faith, and allowed the application to proceed.

The applicant sought an extension of time to file a Response to the respondents' Request for an Order During Proceedings, which sought early dismissal of the application.

The applicant claimed he missed the deadline due to a misunderstanding of information conveyed by Tribunal staff.

The respondents opposed the extension, citing the delay and the applicant's history of untimeliness.

The Tribunal granted a short five-day extension of time to file the Response pursuant to Rule 1.7 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in goods, services, and facilities against the respondent bank.

The respondent submitted that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because it is a federally regulated body.

The Tribunal agreed, noting that banking falls within federal jurisdiction under s. 91(15) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because its principal witness, the applicant's former direct supervisor, was totally disabled and unable to attend for medical reasons.

The applicant opposed the request, arguing the medical information was unclear and a delay would affect her mental health.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that the illness of a fundamental witness constituted an exceptional circumstance warranting an adjournment under its Practice Direction.

The applicant brought a Request for an Order during Proceedings (RFOP) seeking to protect her and her children's identities by using initials.

The respondent did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal noted that the hearing would likely involve sensitive evidence regarding the applicant's mental health and the involvement of the Children's Aid Society.

Pursuant to Rules 3.11 and 3.11.1 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal granted the request to protect the identity of the children, ordering that the applicant and her children be referred to by their initials in all Tribunal decisions.

The applicant filed an application alleging a breach of settlement under section 45.9(3) of the Human Rights Code.

Despite numerous directions from the Tribunal, the applicant failed to deliver the application or the Minutes of Settlement to the respondent and failed to file proof of service.

The Tribunal found that it could not properly consider the application due to the applicant's repeated failure to comply with the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The application was dismissed and the file was closed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging the respondent failed to accommodate her daughter's disability.

During the proceedings, the applicant repeatedly refused to comply with the Tribunal's direction to undergo cross-examination until certain preliminary issues were determined to her satisfaction.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's refusal to abide by its directions demonstrated a lack of respect for the Tribunal's process and impeded its ability to fairly and efficiently determine the issues.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

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

The Tribunal scheduled a hearing and denied the applicant's request for an adjournment.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing and did not communicate with the Tribunal to explain his absence.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, deeming it to have been abandoned.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The respondent failed to file a response to the second Notice of Application despite multiple notices and a prior interim decision warning of the consequences.

The Tribunal ordered that the application proceed without the respondent's participation, deeming the respondent to have waived its rights and accepted all allegations in the application.

The respondent Police Services Board requested that the human rights application be deferred pending the completion of a related arbitration under the Police Services Act.

The applicant agreed to the deferral.

The Tribunal found that there was a substantial overlap in the facts of the two proceedings and that deferral would avoid simultaneous litigation and the possibility of inconsistent findings.

The application was deferred pending the completion of the arbitration.

The applicant filed a human rights application against York University, two professors, and a fellow student, alleging racial discrimination regarding a group project.

The corporate respondent requested the removal of the two professors as personal respondents, accepting vicarious liability for their actions.

The Tribunal applied the Persaud factors and removed the professors, finding no compelling reason to keep them as parties.

The Tribunal also deferred the applicant's request to compel the university to disclose the student respondent's contact information, ordering the applicant to first provide submissions on whether the student is a proper respondent under the Code.

The applicant, president of a company operating a gas station, filed a human rights application against an employee of the gas supplier, alleging discrimination on the basis of race, disability, and reprisal.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the dispute was essentially a commercial and contractual matter between two corporations not named as parties, and that the applicant failed to point to any evidence linking the respondent's actions to a Code ground.

The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal by her former employer and individual respondents following a previous settlement for sexual harassment.

The respondents denied the allegations and requested a summary hearing.

The Tribunal found the applicant's allegations incredible and internally inconsistent, and noted her failure to provide supporting evidence or identify witnesses.

The Tribunal concluded there was no reasonable prospect of success and dismissed the application.