HRTO 2011

The applicant filed a human rights application but subsequently passed away.

The Tribunal contacted the applicant's Executor to determine if the estate intended to proceed with the application.

After receiving no response to its direction, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application but subsequently passed away.

The Tribunal directed the applicant's executor to confirm whether the estate intended to proceed with the application, warning that failure to respond would result in dismissal for abandonment.

The executor did not respond within the specified timeframe.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, creed, and reprisal.

During the hearing on the merits, after providing his evidence-in-chief and being cross-examined, the applicant requested to withdraw his application.

The participating respondents did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal granted leave to withdraw the application.

The applicant, a former Support Clerk at the Ministry of Finance, alleged discrimination and harassment in employment on the basis of age, race, colour, and place of origin after her position was declared surplus during a restructuring.

She claimed co-workers mumbled around her desk and bullied her, and that her termination was motivated by discriminatory preferences.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no evidence that the alleged harassment or the decision to declare her position surplus were related to any Code-protected grounds.

The respondents provided credible evidence that the restructuring was based on changing business needs and technology.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the City of Ottawa.

The Tribunal directed a hearing on whether the application should be dismissed for delay.

The applicant's union, CUPE Local 503, filed a late request to intervene, which the applicant opposed.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene, noting that the applicant alleged poor or misleading advice by the union caused his delay, meaning the union's interests could be affected.

The scope of the union's participation was left to be determined at the continuation of the hearing.

The applicant requested to cancel his human rights application and stop the scheduled hearing.

The respondent sought confirmation of the withdrawal.

The Tribunal granted the applicant leave to withdraw the application and cancelled the hearing.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing because she was in the process of changing counsel and her new counsel was unavailable.

The respondent opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding that a change of counsel is not an extraordinary circumstance justifying an adjournment under the Tribunal's Practice Direction, particularly given the age of the application and a previous adjournment granted for the same reason.

The Tribunal previously issued an Interim Decision noting that the Ontario Human Rights Commission had not obtained the consent of the respondent's Monitor or leave of the Superior Court of Justice to refer the complaint.

The parties were directed to provide submissions as to why the complaint should not be dismissed.

No submissions were received, and the complaint was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to contracts based on association.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred pending the outcome of another related application, which had already been deferred pending a Small Claims Court action.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to file written submissions on the deferral request, but the applicant failed to do so.

The Tribunal ordered the application deferred to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, place of origin, and ethnic origin, claiming he was wrongfully terminated following an inadequate investigation into an alleged altercation with a co-worker.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to identify any evidence that could establish a link between his termination or the employer's investigation and the prohibited grounds.

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

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled summary hearing, sending an email on the morning of the hearing stating he could not attend due to a migraine.

The respondents' counsel appeared and made submissions.

The adjudicator adjourned the applications pending the filing of a request by the respondents to dismiss the applications as an abuse of process and to declare the applicant a vexatious litigant.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding sought to 'appeal' an earlier interim decision that denied his request to expand his witness list, and provided medical information regarding his readiness to attend a hearing.

The Tribunal noted that its rules do not permit appeals or reconsiderations of interim decisions, but provided further explanation for refusing the additional witnesses, noting they lacked direct knowledge of the material events.

The Tribunal scheduled the hearing for two days to focus solely on the applicant's evidence, with accommodations for breaks as recommended by his doctors.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing due to medical reasons, providing a doctor's note.

The applicant failed to confirm delivery of the request to the respondent or seek their consent as required by the Tribunal's Practice Direction.

Despite this procedural failure, the Tribunal granted the adjournment based on the medical evidence, directing the applicant to contact the respondent to identify mutually available dates within twelve weeks.

The applicant, a 12-year-old student with a developmental disability, alleged discrimination, reprisal, and breach of settlement against the respondent school board regarding an incident where she refused to bring her backpack into the classroom.

The Tribunal admitted a surreptitious audio recording of the incident into evidence.

The Tribunal found that the school staff did not berate the applicant but coaxed her and provided incentives, modifying their approach appropriately.

The Tribunal concluded that the respondent did not fail to accommodate the applicant's disability and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of record of offences.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss and a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to clarify whether the allegations fell within the Code's definition of record of offences or disability.

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

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

The individual respondent, a teacher, brought a Request for an Order during a Proceeding to add the School Board as a respondent and to remove herself as a personal respondent in a human rights application alleging discriminatory comments.

The School Board consented to being added and acknowledged the teacher was acting in the course of her employment.

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal granted the request, adding the School Board and removing the individual teacher as a respondent, noting the School Board's capacity to respond to the monetary remedy sought.

The applicant, a paramedic, filed a request for an interim remedy seeking an order that the respondent employer issue him 100% cotton uniform items.

The employer had requested a new medical form to support his continuing need for a non-standard uniform, which the applicant refused to complete.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the medical form was not overly intrusive, the request was delayed by over a year, and granting the interim remedy would effectively grant part of the final relief sought without a full determination on the merits.

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

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

Despite receiving proper notice and confirming her understanding of the teleconference details, the applicant failed to attend the hearing.

After waiting 30 minutes, the adjudicator dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

A summary hearing was scheduled by conference call to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to call into the hearing at the scheduled time.

The Tribunal dismissed the application due to the applicant's non-attendance, noting that the applicant's subsequent explanation for missing the start time was nonsensical and did not justify rescheduling.

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

All respondents except Bart Furmanek filed a Response.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing Mr. Furmanek to file a Response within 10 days, along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice to him and deem him to have accepted the allegations.