HRTO 2011

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

The Tribunal's attempt to deliver the Notice of Application to the respondents was returned to sender.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide correct contact information or explain why the provided information was accurate, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal.

The applicant failed to respond.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the respondent airline, claiming excessive force was used when he attempted to board a flight.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss to determine if it had jurisdiction over the matter.

The Tribunal found that the respondent is an airline and therefore a federal work, undertaking, or business under the Canada Labour Code.

Consequently, the matter falls under federal jurisdiction, and the application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, which was deferred pending the conclusion of ongoing grievance proceedings.

The Tribunal later requested an update on the status of the grievance proceedings, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's inquiry.

Consequently, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, which the Tribunal deferred pending the conclusion of ongoing grievance proceedings.

The Tribunal subsequently requested a status update from the applicant regarding the grievance proceedings, warning that failure to respond could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant did not respond to the request.

As a result, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant, who lacked legal capacity, sought to have his sister appointed as his litigation guardian for a human rights application.

The respondent union argued that previous case law suggested the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to make such an appointment.

The Tribunal held that its power to control its own process under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and the Human Rights Code includes the jurisdiction to appoint a litigation guardian.

The Tribunal directed that a hearing be held to determine whether the proposed litigation guardian should be appointed in this specific case.

The complainant, an auxiliary police officer, alleged he was subjected to reprisal contrary to section 8 of the Human Rights Code when he was permanently screened out of the Toronto Police Service's recruitment process after complaining about alleged discrimination.

The Tribunal found that while the complainant had claimed rights under the Code, there was no nexus between his complaint and the decision to screen him out.

The decision to permanently screen him out was based on a review of his application file which revealed concerns about his judgment and ability to be supervised, including a withdrawn charge of impersonating a police officer and a history of challenging decisions.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, which was deferred pending the conclusion of ongoing grievance proceedings.

The Tribunal later requested a status update on the grievance proceedings, warning that failure to respond could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond by the deadline.

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

The complainant sought to withdraw her human rights complaint against the Ontario Human Rights Commission and the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario granted leave and the complaint was withdrawn.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging racial harassment and reprisal in employment.

A hearing was scheduled and notice was delivered to the applicant.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing and did not contact the Tribunal.

Consequently, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, which was deferred pending the conclusion of ongoing grievance proceedings.

The Tribunal subsequently requested an update on the status of the grievance proceedings, warning that failure to respond could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant did not respond to the Tribunal's correspondence.

As a result, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code based on facts that were also the subject of an ongoing union grievance.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer, to which no parties responded.

Noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority to enforce human rights statutes, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process to ensure the orderly administration of justice.

The applicant sought an adjournment of a preliminary hearing due to the late filing of the respondents' book of authorities, which was granted.

The applicant also requested the production of files from the Ontario Human Rights Commission related to a previous complaint, arguing they were relevant to his reprisal allegations against the respondents.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for production, finding no evidence that the requested materials were arguably relevant to the issues to be addressed at the preliminary hearing.

The applicant, a police officer, requested an adjournment of the hearing to attend the funeral of a slain fellow officer.

The respondent's counsel was out of the country and unable to provide instructions, but acknowledged the tragic circumstances.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding the request was based on extraordinary circumstances as contemplated by the Practice Direction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment based on sexual orientation and receipt of public assistance by his housing provider.

The respondents requested dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter was already decided by the Rental Housing Tribunal (RHT).

The adjudicator found that the RHT had previously considered the exact same factual allegations and applied the Code's definition of harassment, concluding the incident was merely an exchange of bad manners.

Finding that the substance of the application had been appropriately dealt with in the prior proceeding, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application against his union (OSSTF) and the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB), alleging discrimination on the basis of disability.

The respondents requested early dismissal on several grounds, including judicial immunity and delay.

The Tribunal found that the claims against the OLRB were barred by the doctrine of judicial immunity, as they challenged an adjudicative decision.

Furthermore, the Tribunal determined that the application against both respondents was filed beyond the one-year limitation period set out in section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code, and the applicant failed to demonstrate that the delay was incurred in good faith.

The application was dismissed.

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

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation and did not communicate with the Tribunal.

The Tribunal sent a letter warning that failure to respond would result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant did not respond.

The Tribunal found the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination and reprisal regarding a March 2007 decision not to hire him as a Sessional Adjunct Instructor, along with other allegations of a poisoned environment and a comment about his learning disability.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal narrowed the scope of the application to the March 2007 hiring decision, finding that post-complaint allegations were not properly added and the comment about his disability was untimely without a good faith explanation for the delay.

The Tribunal removed the personal respondents, denied the respondents' request for further particulars, and denied the applicant's request for production of documents as they were not relevant to the sole remaining issue.

The respondents brought a request to dismiss the applicant's human rights application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that her prior Employment Standards Act (ESA) complaint appropriately dealt with the substance of her allegations.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment based on sex and pregnancy.

The Tribunal found that while the ESA complaint was a 'proceeding' under section 45.1, the ESA officer's decision focused on reprisal for taking statutory leaves and did not address the broader allegations of discrimination based on sex and pregnancy, including alleged disparaging remarks.

The request for early dismissal was denied.

The applicant, a black female employed as a Telephone Representative, alleged she was subjected to racial discrimination and harassment by her supervisors, culminating in her termination.

The employer maintained that the applicant engaged in a pattern of insubordinate and confrontational behaviour, and that her termination was solely due to this unacceptable conduct.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence lacked credibility and that the employer had legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its performance management and disciplinary actions.

The application was dismissed, as the evidence did not establish that the employer's conduct was vexatious or based on race or colour.

In an interim decision regarding a human rights complaint alleging racial discrimination in the denial of a university promotion, the Tribunal ruled on the admissibility of several proposed witness statements.

The Tribunal struck proposed similar fact evidence from other faculty members as irrelevant and lacking sufficient connection to the respondents.

The Tribunal also struck proposed expert evidence challenging a university equity report and assessing the applicant's promotion dossier, finding that such evidence was not necessary to assist the trier of fact.

Certain paragraphs of the applicant's own witness statement were struck for raising new allegations not included in the original complaint.