HRTO 2011

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in housing on the basis of sex and reprisal against a housing co-operative.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal granted the applicant's request to anonymize his name to protect the identities of his minor children, and granted his request to remove the individually-named respondents.

The Tribunal denied the respondents' request to defer the application pending a Superior Court proceeding regarding rent arrears, finding no connection between the proceedings.

The Tribunal also denied the applicant's request for an interim remedy regarding his housing charges, as the reprisal allegations underlying the request were not part of the current application.

The applicant filed a human rights application but subsequently lost contact with the Tribunal after her counsel withdrew.

She failed to attend a scheduled mediation and did not respond to the Tribunal's written directions to confirm her contact information and intentions.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

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

The respondent failed to file a complete Response, instead submitting a letter arguing the applicant lacked standing and seeking early dismissal.

The Tribunal held that its Rules require a full Response even when a preliminary or jurisdictional issue is raised, except in four specific circumstances not applicable here.

The Tribunal directed the respondent to file a full Response before proceeding further.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The respondent failed to file a response within the required 35 days.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision giving the respondent 10 days to file a response and an explanation for the delay, warning that failure to do so could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice to the respondent pursuant to Rule 5.5.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

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

The Tribunal issued an interim decision giving the respondent 10 days to file a Response and explain the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice to the respondent.

The applicant filed a request for reconsideration of an interim decision that denied his request to operate an insurance brokerage without two contracted markets.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that its rules only permit reconsideration of final decisions that dispose of central issues, whereas the interim decision was not final.

The applicant, a landed immigrant, alleged discrimination on the basis of race, colour, and ethnic origin regarding his interactions with the respondent while attempting to register for an employment assistance program for internationally trained engineers.

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

The applicant admitted he had no evidence beyond his own suspicions to support his allegations of nepotism and discrimination.

The Tribunal found that even if the applicant's allegations of mistreatment were accepted, there was no evidence connecting his experience to the prohibited grounds.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in medical services provided by a physician at St. Michael's Hospital.

The applicant subsequently requested to add the hospital as a respondent.

The hospital opposed the request, arguing the physician was an independent contractor and that it would be prejudiced by the delay.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding the hospital was a necessary party because the physician might be considered an agent of the hospital, and the applicant alleged the hospital failed to adequately respond to his internal complaint.

The parties sought a consent adjournment of a scheduled hearing to attempt mediation.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that its Practice Directions and case law clearly state that the desire to explore settlement does not constitute exceptional circumstances warranting an adjournment.

The parties were directed to immediately file their overdue witness statements and documents, and any preliminary motions would be dealt with at the outset of the hearing.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a previous decision (2010 HRTO 2364) that dismissed his application alleging discrimination in employment.

The applicant argued that a potential witness was not required to give evidence and that he was unable to deliver documents due to a police ban.

The Tribunal found that the applicant provided no new facts or evidence that could be determinative, nor any other factors outweighing the public interest in finality.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

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

Subsequently, the applicant emailed the Tribunal and the respondent providing notice of her intent to abandon the application.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on an alcohol addiction after she resigned following a locker check that discovered alcohol.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the application because of an outstanding union grievance.

Since the grievance appeared to be in abeyance, the application named the union as a respondent, and no party requested deferral, the Tribunal declined to defer the application and directed it to proceed to mediation.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order during Proceedings to correct the respondent's name to match land registry documents, months after the Tribunal had issued a final decision.

The Tribunal found it was functus officio and could not amend the name via such a request, but decided to treat the request as a Request for Reconsideration.

The Tribunal directed the other parties to respond and convened a half-day in-person hearing to determine if the time limit for reconsideration should be extended and whether the respondent's name should be amended.

The applicant, who has a degenerative disease limiting his mobility, filed a human rights application alleging the respondents failed to accommodate his disability at their campground.

The applicant rented a trailer site and required a mobility scooter, but could not access the campground store, public telephone, garbage bins, or community washrooms.

The Tribunal found that the respondents breached the Human Rights Code by failing to make the public facilities accessible to the point of undue hardship.

The Tribunal awarded the applicant $15,225 in monetary compensation for loss of enjoyment and injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, plus pre-judgment interest.

The Tribunal also ordered the corporate respondent to provide accessible washrooms and ensure the store ramp met building code requirements.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination after the respondent refused to hold a coroner's inquest into her mother's death.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed, arguing that an inquest is not a 'service' under the Human Rights Code and that the application was an abuse of process.

The applicant requested to amend her application to add the ground of disability, based on an email disclosed in another proceeding.

The Tribunal dismissed the respondent's request, finding that a coroner's inquest is a service and that there was no abuse of process.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to amend the application to include disability discrimination.

The respondent requested reconsideration of an interim decision that adjourned the hearing due to unresolved production issues.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that its Rules of Procedure for Transitional Applications do not contemplate the reconsideration of an interim decision, and that it would be impractical to proceed with the hearing on the originally scheduled date.

The Tribunal also addressed the production issues, noting it would not order production of documents that have already been produced or do not exist, and directed the parties to provide available dates to reschedule the hearing.

The respondent doctor requested a deferral of the human rights hearing pending the outcome of a reactivated complaint filed by the applicant with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

The Tribunal denied the deferral request, noting that the Tribunal proceeding was at a very advanced stage with a scheduled hearing date and completed pre-hearing obligations, whereas the College proceeding was at a relatively early stage and could be subject to further appeals, causing undue delay.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex, claiming she was terminated due to pregnancy.

She brought a Request for Order During Proceedings to amend her application to explicitly check the 'In being fired' box and to add claims for $25,000 in general damages and special damages for lost wages.

The respondents opposed the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the amendments were reasonably connected to the original allegations, would not prejudice the respondents, and would not prolong the hearing.

The applicant filed three human rights applications alleging discrimination in the provision of services.

The Tribunal scheduled a hearing to address preliminary issues, including requests for early dismissal.

The applicant's paralegal representative failed to comply with multiple Tribunal directions to file materials, unsuccessfully sought three adjournments, and ultimately failed to attend the scheduled hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the applications as abandoned due to the failure to attend and comply with directions.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the representative's pattern of conduct, which was directed at avoiding or delaying the hearing, constituted an abuse of process under section 23(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, providing an additional basis for dismissal.

The applicant filed human rights complaints against her employer and union, alleging discrimination in employment and vocational association on the basis of sex and disability.

The complaints stemmed from a dispute over the volume of a radio played by co-workers and alleged subsequent harassment.

Following the presentation of the applicant's case at the hearing, the respondents moved to dismiss the applications for failing to establish a prima facie case.

The Tribunal found that the applicant presented no medical evidence of a disability and failed to show that the alleged harassment or the respondents' handling of her complaints was based on her sex.

The applications were dismissed.