HRTO 2011

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging disability discrimination in employment for failure to accommodate.

The union, AMAPCEO, requested intervenor status, arguing the application could affect the collective agreement and a workplace accommodation pilot process.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene as unopposed.

The respondents also requested to dismiss the application, arguing the issues were resolved in a prior policy grievance settlement.

The Tribunal deferred the request to dismiss to the adjudicator assigned to hear the merits of the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application that overlapped substantially with an ongoing union grievance proceeding.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer.

The applicant did not oppose deferral, and the respondent agreed to it.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process, in accordance with its general practice for concurrent proceedings.

The applicant in an age discrimination case filed requests to adjourn the scheduled hearing to obtain legal representation and for the production of other candidates' written tests and scoring documents.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, finding no exceptional circumstances as the applicant had ample time to retain counsel.

However, the Tribunal granted the production request, ordering the respondents to produce redacted copies of the other candidates' written tests and scoring documents, as they were arguably relevant to the applicant's claim that his age was disclosed to the test marker.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondents.

The personal respondent failed to file a Response after being served with the Notice of Application.

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

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend the name of the organizational respondent to properly identify it as '510947 Ontario Limited o/a Anchor Inn Hotel'.

As the organizational respondent was already participating and the request was made on consent, the Tribunal granted the request and amended the style of cause.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) on the basis that the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the NOID by the specified deadline.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in the provision of transit services and a transit by-law by the City of Ottawa and OC Transpo.

The respondents requested early dismissal on the basis that OC Transpo is a federally-regulated inter-provincial transportation undertaking.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the transit services and the impugned transit by-law fall within exclusive federal jurisdiction pursuant to section 92(10) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application approximately three years after his dismissal, alleging discrimination on the basis of race and disability.

The Tribunal considered whether the delay was incurred in good faith under section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued the delay was due to his mental health condition and ongoing settlement negotiations.

The Tribunal found no medical evidence supporting the claim that his disability prevented him from pursuing his rights, noting he had retained counsel and pursued a workers' compensation claim during the delay.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application against her employer and her union.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss regarding the union because the application failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination committed by it.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice within the required time.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as against the union.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Confirmation of Hearing, scheduling the hearing for October 31 and November 1, 2011.

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

After waiting 40 minutes, the Tribunal proceeded and dismissed the application on the basis that it was deemed abandoned.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to be filed outside the one-year limitation period.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice by the specified deadline.

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

The organization respondent failed to appear for the continuation of a human rights hearing.

The applicant and individual respondent informed the Tribunal that the organization might be insolvent.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision noting that if the organization is insolvent, proceedings against it may be stayed under section 69 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The Tribunal ordered the parties to take reasonable steps to determine the organization's status and advise the Tribunal.

The respondents requested that the human rights application be dismissed on the basis that the organizational respondent, the Royal Canadian Legion, is under exclusive federal jurisdiction.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that based on established jurisprudence, the Tribunal has jurisdiction over the application.

The respondent in a human rights application brought a request for an order during proceeding seeking production of the applicant's cell phone records, business records, and mitigation documents.

The applicant did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal found the documents arguably relevant to the issues of mitigation and the applicant's allegation that she was framed for workplace misconduct.

The Tribunal ordered production of the requested documents, subject to a temporal limitation on the cell phone records.

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

The Tribunal issued an Interim Decision and a subsequent Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to submit additional materials and indicate whether she wished to proceed.

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

Consequently, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application for being filed outside the one-year limitation period.

The applicant's reconsideration request raised new facts regarding the employer's alleged failure to file a mandatory report with a professional college, but failed to address the issue of delay.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant did not meet the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5 and was improperly attempting to re-argue the merits of his case.

The applicant filed a Request to proceed with his human rights application after a related Ontario Labour Relations Board proceeding was withdrawn.

The Tribunal granted the Request to proceed and directed the respondents to file a Response.

The Tribunal also set a timeline for submissions regarding the applicant's request to amend the Application to add a personal respondent.

The respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking to compel the applicant to comply with her disclosure obligations under the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The Tribunal noted that the hearing was rapidly approaching and the applicant had only filed a compact disc containing a recording.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to immediately deliver and file all documents she intended to rely upon, a witness list, and summaries of expected evidence, warning that failure to comply could result in the exclusion of evidence.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, and disability against his former legal representatives.

The allegations stemmed from comments allegedly made during a mediation session for a motor vehicle accident claim.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal found that even if the applicant's allegations were true, the conduct did not amount to a violation of the Human Rights Code.

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

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

The respondent requested deferral of the application because the applicant had filed a union grievance based on the same facts, which was proceeding to arbitration.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process, noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority and responsibility to enforce human rights obligations.