HRTO 2011

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer the human rights application on the basis that the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) had exclusive jurisdiction over the issues.

The applicant opposed the deferral, noting that the WSIB claim had been closed since August 2010.

The Tribunal found no basis to defer the application because the WSIB process had concluded and there was no active proceeding or appeal.

The respondents' request to defer was denied.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her application alleging discrimination, harassment, and reprisal on the basis of disability.

The applicant argued the decision was incorrect in law and that new evidence existed.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant was attempting to re-argue her case and had not identified any new facts or evidence that could not have been obtained earlier, nor did she establish that the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence.

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

The applicant's union, the United Food Commercial Workers Locals 175 & 633, filed a Request to Intervene.

The Tribunal granted the union intervenor status, noting that a union almost always has an interest in a human rights application involving a member, and there were no exceptional circumstances to deny the request.

The respondent university requested an order to change the hearing venue from Windsor to Toronto and to bifurcate the hearing.

The Tribunal denied the venue change, ordering the initial hearing dates to proceed in Windsor.

The Tribunal granted the request to bifurcate the hearing between liability and remedial phases, noting the extensive remedies sought.

The Tribunal also granted the request to bifurcate the evidence, ordering that evidence concerning the decanal search be heard prior to evidence of systemic discrimination.

Finally, the Tribunal directed the parties to provide submissions on the applicant's standing to bring a complaint of systemic discrimination.

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

A summary hearing was scheduled by conference call to determine whether the application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing and provided no explanation for his absence.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision dismissing her human rights application as abandoned after she failed to attend a scheduled summary hearing.

The applicant provided medical evidence confirming a learning disability and memory impairment, which caused her to confuse the hearing date.

The Tribunal found that these circumstances outweighed the public interest in the finality of decisions, granted the request for reconsideration, and set aside the dismissal.

The applicants, a mother and her six-year-old son, alleged discrimination in child care services based on First Nations ancestry, disability, and family status.

The Tribunal dismissed the disability and family status claims at the outset for lack of evidence.

On the ancestry claim, the mother alleged her son was bullied due to his First Nations ancestry and that the child care centre terminated their services to avoid addressing the issue.

The Tribunal found insufficient reliable evidence that the respondents knew or ought to have known the bullying was related to the child's ancestry.

Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded the termination of services was credibly based on the mother's inappropriate and disruptive conduct, not as a pretext for discrimination.

The applications were dismissed.

The respondent requested the dismissal of the applicant's human rights application, arguing that allegations predating November 12, 2009 were untimely, lacked particularity, and failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.

The Tribunal found that the historical allegations constituted a 'series of incidents' under section 34(1)(b) of the Human Rights Code, bringing them within the time limit.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the allegations for lack of a prima facie case but ordered the applicant to provide further particulars regarding job competitions between 1992 and 2006.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the applicant had commenced a civil proceeding based on the same facts.

The applicant provided evidence that the civil action was withdrawn prior to filing the human rights application.

The Tribunal found that section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code did not bar the application and directed the matter to proceed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of ethnic origin, disability, association, and reprisal.

The respondents requested early dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that a prior grievance arbitration had appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal found that the arbitrator had addressed the facts underlying the ethnic origin claim and dismissed that portion of the application.

However, the Tribunal ordered a summary hearing to determine if the remaining allegations regarding disability, association, and reprisal had a reasonable prospect of success.

The respondents brought a Request for Order during Proceedings seeking to dismiss the application for abuse of process, arguing that the applicant failed to comply with the disclosure requirements under Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The adjudicator noted that the applicant, who was represented by counsel, had missed the deadlines for disclosure.

However, the adjudicator declined to dismiss the application at this stage, instead warning the applicant that failure to comply with the Rules could result in the Tribunal refusing permission to introduce undisclosed documents or witnesses at the hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination more than two years after the last alleged incident, and more than one year after a previous application was dismissed for being filed under the wrong section of the Code.

The applicant argued the delay was in good faith due to mental health issues and time spent in Thailand.

The Tribunal found the delay was not incurred in good faith, noting the applicant's ability to travel and file electronically, and dismissed the application for being outside the one-year limitation period.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of creed, arguing that the respondent's online application form, which required a pastoral letter, violated the Code.

The applicant had previously filed an identical application that was dismissed for delay as it was outside the one-year limitation period.

In this new application, the applicant attempted to rely on a different section of the Code (s. 13) to argue the discrimination was ongoing.

The Tribunal applied the doctrine of issue estoppel, finding that the question of timeliness had already been decided in the previous final decision between the same parties.

The application was dismissed for delay.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application as abandoned after she failed to attend the scheduled hearing.

The applicant claimed she missed the hearing due to a mistake regarding the date, stress from family issues, and fatigue.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the applicant's explanation did not constitute compelling and extraordinary circumstances or new facts that could potentially be determinative of the case.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of race, colour, place of origin, citizenship, and ethnic origin by police officers and jail wardens following his arrest for domestic assault.

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

The applicant's only evidence of discrimination was a police officer's notebook entry describing suspects in an unrelated incident as 'pakistani/indian'.

The Tribunal found this insufficient to link the respondents' actions to the alleged grounds and dismissed the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The respondent requested the early dismissal of a human rights application under s. 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, arguing it was barred by a concurrent civil proceeding.

Alternatively, the respondent sought to defer the application pending the civil claim's outcome.

The Tribunal found that the civil claim did not allege discrimination or seek remedies under the Code, meaning s. 34(11) did not apply.

The Tribunal also declined to defer the application, noting the civil trial was at least two years away, which diminished the risk of inconsistent findings.

The requests for dismissal and deferral were denied.

The respondent requested to defer the human rights application pending the outcome of the applicant's civil proceeding against the Toronto Police Service.

The applicant alleged discrimination in services based on race, claiming the respondent falsely identified him to police, leading to a brutal detention.

The Tribunal denied the deferral request, finding that the duplicative allegations regarding police conduct were not properly against the respondent, and the civil action was still in its early stages.

The applicant, a student in an ESL program, alleged discrimination on the basis of age and reprisal after complaining about class size and his teacher.

At a summary hearing, the applicant sought to amend his application to add place of origin as a ground of discrimination.

The Tribunal denied the amendment, finding the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The Tribunal also dismissed the application in its entirety, finding no reasonable prospect of success as the applicant had no evidence linking his treatment to his age, and the alleged reprisal did not stem from the assertion of human rights.

The applicant, a veterinarian, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the College of Veterinarians of Ontario regarding disciplinary proceedings.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application was filed approximately 16 months after the last alleged incident of discrimination.

The applicant argued the discrimination was ongoing due to continuing litigation.

The Tribunal found that waiting for another legal proceeding to conclude is not a good faith reason for delay and dismissed the application as out of time.

The applicant, a former minister, filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of creed after the respondent ordered her to move out of the church conference boundaries.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant has a distinct creed, she failed to articulate why the respondent's treatment of her was based on that creed.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.