HRTO 2011

The applicant filed a request for an order to add a proposed corporate respondent, alleging that the original corporate respondent transferred its assets to avoid liability.

The Tribunal held that it lacks jurisdiction to add a party solely on the basis of successor or related employer principles, as the Human Rights Code does not contain such provisions.

Applying the test for adding a respondent, the Tribunal found no allegations that the proposed respondent violated the Code, as it was allegedly created after the application was filed.

The request was denied.

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

A Notice of Intent to Dismiss was issued because the application appeared to be filed more than one year after the last incident of discrimination.

The applicant submitted that she erred in her initial filing and that her employment was actually terminated exactly one year before she attempted to file the application.

The Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the application was barred by delay and directed that the application continue.

The applicant, a program coordinator at a residential rehabilitation facility, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and reprisal.

He claimed he was denied time off to deal with stress and depression and was subsequently terminated.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish he suffered from a mental health disability at the material time or that he had disclosed any such disability or need for accommodation to his employer.

The Tribunal accepted the employer's evidence that the termination was for cause due to ongoing performance issues that culminated in a failure to ensure adequate care for a vulnerable client.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

The respondent failed to file a Response by the deadline set in the Notice of Application.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent of the consequences of failing to participate and granting a 10-day extension to file a Response with an explanation for the delay.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by the police service and an individual officer for refusing to accept his complaints.

The Tribunal found that the application was barred by section 53(8) of the Human Rights Code because it arose from the same factual history, dealt with the same issues, and asserted the same allegations as a previous complaint filed with the Commission.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in the area of goods, services and facilities.

A hearing was scheduled, but the applicant failed to attend.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had notice of the hearing and failed to take the necessary steps to pursue the application.

The application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of marital status, family status, and sex following the termination of his employment as a trainee investment advisor.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's allegations regarding marital and family status did not constitute prima facie violations of the Code, and his allegation of sex discrimination was speculative with no available evidence.

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

During a case management conference call in a human rights application, the respondent raised a preliminary issue regarding whether the applicant's litigation guardian, who holds powers of attorney for personal care and property, should be removed due to an alleged conflict of interest.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the applicant to file the relevant Power of Attorney and scheduling a teleconference hearing to determine whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to remove a litigation guardian under the Substitute Decisions Act.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming he was laid off because the respondent employer refused to accommodate his work-related injury.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application because the applicant had an ongoing union grievance based on the same facts and issues.

Finding significant overlap between the application and the grievance, and noting no submissions opposing deferral from the applicant or his union, the Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application pending the conclusion of the grievance process.

The applicant filed two human rights applications alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment.

The respondents requested the removal of several individually named respondents, while the applicant sought to add more individuals and amend his application.

The Tribunal applied the Persaud factors and removed the individual respondents, noting the corporate respondents accepted liability and had the ability to remedy any proven discrimination.

The Tribunal also denied the applicant's request to add further individuals, but permitted an amendment to add the ground of sex.

The respondent requested an early dismissal of the human rights application, arguing that the substance of the complaint was wrongful dismissal and lacked evidence of discrimination.

The applicant alleged discrimination and reprisal in employment on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, creed, family status, and marital status, claiming his employment was terminated because his status as an Indian and his spiritual beliefs were questioned.

The Tribunal found that the application raised issues within its jurisdiction and denied the respondent's request to dismiss the application without a hearing, ordering the respondent to file a full response.

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

The Tribunal attempted to deliver the Notice of Application to the respondent twice, but both times the mail was returned as 'Moved/Unknown'.

The Tribunal issued an Interim Decision ordering the applicant to provide a current, complete, and accurate address for the respondent within 20 days.

The applicant failed to comply with the order.

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

The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination and reprisal against a bank and an individual respondent.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that the respondent bank is a federally regulated organization.

The Tribunal found that it lacked jurisdiction to proceed, as banking falls exclusively under federal jurisdiction pursuant to s. 91(15) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The application was dismissed.

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

The respondent failed to file a Response by the required deadline.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent that failure to participate may lead to orders against it without further notice, and granted the respondent 10 days to file a Response with an explanation for the delay.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability following a work-related injury.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the resolution of the applicant's WSIB claim.

After receiving submissions from one of the respondents, the Tribunal found there was insufficient information regarding the status of the WSIB claim to justify deferral.

The Tribunal declined to defer the application and directed the respondents to file their responses.

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

The Tribunal made multiple attempts to contact the applicant, but correspondence was returned as "moved/unknown".

The Tribunal issued an Interim Decision directing the applicant to provide current contact information and advise of his intentions, warning that failure to do so would result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond or provide updated contact information.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

The respondent failed to file a Response by the required deadline.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondent to file a Response within 10 days, along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice and deem the respondent to have accepted the allegations.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

The respondent failed to file a response by the required deadline.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondent to file a response within 10 days, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice and deem the respondent to have accepted the allegations.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The respondent failed to file a Response by the required deadline.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondent to file a Response within 10 days, along with an explanation for the delay.

The Tribunal warned that if no Response is received, it may proceed without further notice to the respondent and deem the respondent to have accepted the allegations.

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

The respondents failed to file a Response by the required deadline.

The Tribunal issued an Interim Decision warning the respondents that failure to participate could lead to orders against them without their participation, pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondents were given 10 days to file a Response and explain the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice.