HRTO 2011

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code against an individual respondent regarding the termination of her employment.

She subsequently filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to add the individual respondent's company as a corporate respondent, noting she was unrepresented when she filed the initial application.

The Tribunal applied the factors for adding a party and found it would be fair to add the corporate respondent, as the allegations could support a finding that the company violated the Code.

The request to add the corporate respondent was granted.

The corporate and individual respondents brought a request to remove six individual respondents from a human rights application alleging workplace harassment and discrimination.

The corporate respondent accepted vicarious liability for the individuals' actions.

Applying the Persaud test, the Tribunal found no compelling reason to continue the proceeding against three of the individuals whose alleged conduct was secondary and against whom no individual remedies were sought.

The request was granted for those three individuals, but denied as premature for the remaining three individuals pending mediation and the resolution of other preliminary issues.

The complainant sought to withdraw his human rights complaint against the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario granted leave and the complaint was withdrawn.

The complainant sought to withdraw his human rights complaint against the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario granted leave and the complaint was withdrawn.

The complainant withdrew their human rights complaint against the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

The Tribunal granted leave for the withdrawal.

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

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario granted leave to withdraw the complaint.

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

In a previous interim decision, the Tribunal denied the applicant's request to attend the hearing by teleconference due to credibility issues and directed him to confirm his in-person attendance within 20 days.

The applicant failed to confirm his attendance within the specified time period.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

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

The respondent failed to file a Response by the deadline.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent of the consequences of failing to participate under Rule 5.5 of the Rules of Procedure.

The respondent was granted 10 days to file a Response along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice.

The applicant filed a human rights application more than one year after the last alleged incident of discrimination.

The Tribunal held a telephone conference to determine if the delay was incurred in good faith under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

Although the applicant provided medical evidence of severe depression and fibromyalgia, the Tribunal found that during the delay period he was able to retain legal counsel, file a WSIB claim, and engage in email correspondence with the respondent.

The Tribunal concluded the delay was not incurred in good faith and dismissed the application.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled continuation of the hearing, stating only that she was unavailable for the dates.

The respondents consented to the request.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, noting that its Practice Direction requires exceptional circumstances for adjournments, even on consent, and the applicant provided no such circumstances.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability, marital status, and association after the respondent police service allegedly shared information about her with her spouse's long-term disability insurance carrier.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of establishing a link between the allegations and the social areas or prohibited grounds in the Human Rights Code, as the information was shared in an employment context rather than as a law enforcement service.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment and membership in a vocational association.

The union requested intervenor status, which the Tribunal granted.

The applicant requested to amend the application to include the ground of disability, which was also granted.

The Tribunal directed the parties to provide further written submissions regarding the respondents' request to defer the application pending the conclusion of related grievances, and regarding the Tribunal's jurisdiction over the vocational association allegation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of creed, claiming her employer failed to accommodate her inability to work on Sundays.

The applicant's union requested intervenor status, which the applicant opposed.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene, noting that a bargaining agent almost always has an interest in a member's application.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed for delay.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss at this stage, finding insufficient information to determine whether the allegations constituted a series of incidents within the one-year time limit.

The respondent property management company requested an order to consolidate two human rights applications filed by residents of a condominium building.

Both applicants alleged discrimination on the basis of disability regarding the assignment of parking spaces.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the facts and issues were common and interrelated, and that consolidation would avoid inconvenience, repetition of evidence, and the risk of inconsistent results.

The applicant filed a human rights application.

The respondent Condominium Corporation failed to file a Response within the required 35 days.

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 but advised at mediation that he did not wish to proceed.

He declined to complete a formal withdrawal form.

The Tribunal subsequently directed the applicant to confirm his intentions in writing, warning that failure to respond would result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond within the specified time period.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in the provision of educational services based on disability.

The applicant failed to comply with multiple pre-hearing obligations, including filing a statement of additional facts, providing medical documentation for an accommodation request, and filing a witness list and documents.

The applicant subsequently failed to attend the scheduled hearing without providing any explanation.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in services based on disability and reprisal.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intention to Dismiss (NOID) because the initial application failed to identify specific acts of discrimination.

In response, the applicant provided written submissions detailing verbal ridicule by the respondent's staff regarding a facial disfigurement, as well as a subsequent refusal of service after he complained.

The Tribunal concluded it was not plain and obvious that the application fell outside its jurisdiction and directed that the application be processed and served on the respondent.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal when he was not returned from lay-off.

The applicant had also filed a union grievance based on the same facts.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer.

The respondent submitted that the application should be deferred as the grievance was proceeding under the collective agreement.

The applicant and his union did not file submissions.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance proceeding in accordance with its usual practice.

The applicant, a resident of a housing co-operative and recipient of social assistance, alleged discrimination regarding the calculation of her monthly housing charge and claimed the co-operative's attempts to evict her constituted a reprisal for her previous legal actions.

The Tribunal dismissed the discrimination claim as it was filed outside the one-year limitation period without a reasonable explanation for the delay, and was also barred by an outstanding Small Claims Court action on the same facts.

The reprisal claim was dismissed because the co-operative's actions were found to be motivated by compliance with a Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation directive, not retaliation.

Allegations regarding discriminatory comments were also dismissed due to insufficient evidence and lack of jurisdiction.