HRTO 2011

The respondent requested an order dismissing the application for abuse of process due to the applicant's failure to comply with disclosure rules, and alternatively sought an adjournment because its key witness was unable to leave the United States pending an immigration status adjustment.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application at this stage but warned the applicant of the consequences of non-compliance.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding the witness's immigration impediment constituted an extraordinary circumstance and that there was no serious prejudice to the applicant.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application as abandoned.

The applicant submitted that he did not receive the Tribunal's Notice of Intent to Dismiss because it was sent to his union, which did not forward it to him.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not receive the Notice through no fault of his own and did not intend to abandon his application.

The request for reconsideration was granted, the previous decision was set aside, and the applicant was given 21 days to respond to the issue of delay.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that several grocery store chains discriminated against him on the basis of creed by collecting a 'Kosher Tax' on food items.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish the existence of such a tax or demonstrate how he was treated differently from other customers based on his creed.

Concluding there was no reasonable prospect of success, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

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

After failing to comply with the Tribunal's rules regarding the disclosure of documents and witnesses, the applicant informed the respondents' counsel that he would not attend the scheduled hearing.

The applicant subsequently failed to respond to the Tribunal's correspondence inquiring whether he intended to proceed.

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

The applicant filed an application alleging the respondents breached Minutes of Settlement by failing to pay $37,000 in general damages by the agreed deadline and by erroneously deducting taxes from the initial payment.

The respondents corrected the tax error and issued the proper payment shortly after the deadline.

The Tribunal found a minor breach of the settlement terms but declined to impose a penalty, noting the respondents' prompt apology and correction.

The Tribunal awarded the applicant $150 as compensation for the frustration caused by the delay and the incorrect tax deduction.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application as abandoned.

The application had been deferred pending a grievance arbitration, and the applicant's counsel inadvertently missed an email from the Tribunal requesting a status update.

The Tribunal found that the failure to respond was due to a confluence of inadvertence, the applicant did not intend to abandon the application, and there was no prejudice to the respondent.

The reconsideration request was granted, the dismissal was set aside, and the application was returned to deferred status.

The applicant alleged discrimination in goods, services or facilities on the basis of disability after the respondent refused to offer him a second interview for an internship.

The respondent had cancelled the interview because the applicant was no longer a client of the disability management program through which the internship was arranged.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success as there was no evidence connecting the respondent's decision to the applicant's disability.

The applicant filed a human rights application.

The respondents submitted a detailed document responding to the allegations but failed to file a completed Form 2 as required by Rule 8 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondents to file a completed Form 2 within ten days, noting that the previously submitted document would be added as a schedule to the completed form.

The applicant, a 60-year-old public servant on secondment, alleged age discrimination, harassment, and a poisoned work environment after she was not selected for a permanent position and subsequently retired.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's manager discriminated against her on the basis of age by repeatedly encouraging her to retire and discouraging her from applying for the permanent position.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the allegations that the hiring process itself was discriminatory, that a poisoned work environment was created, and that the employer failed to properly investigate her internal complaint.

The hearing was bifurcated, and a subsequent hearing was ordered to determine damages for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect arising from the discriminatory comments.

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

The respondents requested that the application be deferred pending the completion of the grievance process, and the applicant did not object.

The Tribunal deferred the application in accordance with its general practice of deferring applications where there is an ongoing grievance based on the same facts and human rights issues.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled summary hearing, citing her disability, work commitments, and family issues.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the reasons provided were either too vague or did not constitute extraordinary circumstances as required by the Tribunal's Practice Direction for adjournment requests made after the 14-day window.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction, and directed the applicant to respond.

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

As a result, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and reprisal.

A hearing was scheduled, but the applicant failed to attend.

The Tribunal waited the customary time before proceeding in the applicant's absence.

Satisfied that the applicant had received timely notice of the hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision dismissing his application alleging discrimination in the provision of services on the basis of disability.

He argued the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence by requiring him to disclose his disability to trigger the duty to accommodate.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the duty to cooperate requires a person seeking accommodation to disclose sufficient information to enable the service provider to identify and implement appropriate accommodation, and that the applicant failed to establish any grounds for reconsideration.

The applicant filed a human rights application and subsequently requested to withdraw it.

The respondents objected to the withdrawal, citing the significant expense incurred in defending the application and requesting a decision on the merits or a condition barring future applications.

The Tribunal granted the request to withdraw, noting the applicant's agreement not to file another application against the respondents based on the same allegations.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and age.

The respondent employer's counsel advised the Tribunal that the corporate entity operating the employer was in receivership and subject to a stay of proceedings under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

Noting that the receivership order was dated 2006 but the employer was operating in 2009, the Tribunal ordered the respondent employer or Receiver to clarify the current status of the receivership and whether a stay remains in effect.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, over two years after her employment was terminated.

The respondents argued the application was out of time.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay and did not establish that the delay was incurred in good faith under section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed as untimely.

The applicant filed an application under 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 Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondent was granted 10 days to file a response and explain the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice.

The applicants filed seven applications alleging discrimination in the provision of services by the respondent police service.

The Tribunal scheduled a summary hearing to determine if the applications should proceed.

Prior to the hearing, the applicants advised they would not participate and failed to attend.

The Tribunal dismissed the applications as abandoned.

The applicant filed an application under s. 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 was directed to respond but failed to do so by the deadline.

As a result, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.