HRTO 2011

The respondent requested the dismissal of a human rights application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application was appropriately dealt with through a complaint and investigation under the Police Services Act.

The Tribunal noted that the application of s. 45.1 in the context of the Police Services Act is a significant issue arising in multiple cases.

The Tribunal deferred the issue, indicating it would issue a further Case Assessment Direction and invited potential interveners to file requests.

The respondents in a human rights application alleging racial discrimination in employment brought a request for an order during proceedings.

They sought an extension of time to file their response and an order compelling the applicant to produce his medical advisory service file.

The Tribunal denied the request for medical records as premature, noting that the core allegations of racial discrimination could be answered without them and that document disclosure normally occurs after pleadings are closed.

The Tribunal granted the extension of time because key individuals needed to prepare the response were unavailable due to family emergencies, retirement, and summer holidays.

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

The Tribunal previously adjourned the application, noting it could be dismissed as abandoned if no party requested it proceed within a year.

After the deadline passed with no request, the Tribunal contacted the applicant and her counsel, who failed to respond.

The Tribunal found the application abandoned and dismissed it.

In an ongoing human rights application, the Tribunal issued an interim decision addressing disclosure and procedural issues ahead of the next hearing date.

The applicant, who had already closed her case, sought to call a new witness and requested production of the respondent's billing records and certain email correspondence.

The Tribunal denied the requests to call the witness and produce the billing records, noting the applicant had already presented her evidence and the billing records lacked relevance.

The Tribunal also declined to order production of the emails, as the applicant had not properly requested them.

Finally, the Tribunal granted the respondent's request to record the remainder of the hearing, subject to conditions.

In a transitional human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, marital status, and family status, the applicant requested the production of various documents.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to produce job order position forms and commission reports for 2006 and 2007, finding them arguably relevant to the applicant's claim of differential treatment.

The Tribunal also confirmed the bifurcation of the hearing, permitted the self-represented applicant to testify despite procedural non-compliance, and directed the parties to exchange documents.

The respondents requested the removal of several personal respondents from three consolidated human rights applications.

The Tribunal applied the criteria from Persaud v. Toronto District School Board to determine if there was a compelling reason to continue the proceedings against the individuals.

The Tribunal maintained the personal respondents who were directly and centrally involved in the alleged discrimination, such as the applicant's principals and superintendent.

However, the Tribunal removed individuals whose involvement was peripheral, speculative, or based solely on their institutional roles, noting that human rights legislation is meant to compensate victims rather than punish perpetrators.

The applicant, a school principal, alleged that his supervisor and the school board discriminated against him on the basis of disability and reprised against him for a previous human rights complaint.

The respondents maintained that the supervisor's actions were legitimate performance management in response to serious staff complaints.

During the merits hearing, after hearing the supervisor's evidence, the Tribunal considered whether the application should be dismissed.

The Tribunal held that it has the power to dismiss an application during a hearing if there is no reasonable prospect of success.

Finding the supervisor's evidence credible and concluding that her actions were untainted by the applicant's disability or prior complaint, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application as abandoned after he failed to respond to a status inquiry letter.

The applicant submitted that he never received the letter and had no intention of abandoning his application, which had been deferred pending grievance arbitration.

The Tribunal granted the reconsideration request, finding that the applicant successfully rebutted the presumption of delivery and that the failure to respond was through no fault of his own.

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to remove the two personal respondents from the Application, arguing that the corporate respondent had been added and the allegations related to the personal respondents' actions in their employment capacity.

The applicant did not file submissions.

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal found no compelling reason to continue the proceeding against the personal respondents, as the allegations pertained to their employment roles and the corporate respondent was in the best position to satisfy any potential remedies.

The request was granted and the personal respondents were removed.

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

He requested that the application be deferred pending the conclusion of a union grievance and a proceeding under the Canadian Human Rights Act.

The respondent argued the application should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and because of internal employer policies.

The Tribunal deferred the application, finding that the jurisdictional issue was already before the CHRC and that internal policies are not a basis for dismissal under section 45.1 of the Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex, family status, and age, claiming she was terminated shortly after advising her employer she was pregnant.

The application was filed more than one year after the termination.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for delay.

The applicant provided information indicating she suffered from severe anxiety and depression requiring psychiatric care and hospitalization.

The Tribunal held it was not plain and obvious that the delay was not incurred in good faith, and directed that the application be processed and served on the respondent.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment and reprisal, naming the employer, the union, and the Grievance Settlement Board (GSB) as respondents.

The GSB sought to be removed as a respondent, arguing that its adjudicative decisions, such as granting adjournments, are protected by judicial immunity and do not constitute a service under section 1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that it has no jurisdiction over the GSB's adjudicative decisions or its alleged failure to develop specific rules for human rights grievances.

The application against the GSB was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual solicitation following her termination from employment.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application was filed more than one year after the last alleged incident of discrimination.

The applicant argued the delay was due to stress and ignorance of the time limit, and that she was pursuing an OLRB application against her union.

The Tribunal found that ignorance of the law and stress did not constitute a reasonable explanation for the delay, and that the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability regarding services at the Midland ServiceOntario Centre.

The applicant originally named the Minister of Transportation as a respondent.

The Crown responded that it was not the correct respondent and that the Centre was an independent legal entity.

The applicant subsequently requested to remove the Crown respondents and add the Centre as the sole respondent.

The Tribunal applied the test for adding a party and granted the request, finding that the allegations could support a Code violation and there was no apparent prejudice to the proposed respondent.

The applicant sought reconsideration of an interim decision ordering him to produce notes taken during an evaluation process.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the interim decision was not a final decision and therefore could not be the subject of a reconsideration request under Rule 26.1.

However, the Tribunal clarified that the applicant could redact any portions of the notes protected by solicitor-client privilege.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex (pregnancy).

Nine months later, the respondent corporation dissolved and sought to cancel mediation and discontinue the application.

The Tribunal held that pursuant to section 242(1)(a) of the Business Corporations Act, an administrative proceeding commenced against a corporation before its dissolution may be continued.

The Tribunal directed the application to proceed and ordered the respondent to file the complete Certificate of Articles of Dissolution.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed her application against the Regional Municipality of Halton and allowed her to withdraw her application against Mariposa Co-operative Homes Inc. The applicant alleged she did not receive relevant paperwork and was unaware of a summary hearing.

The Tribunal found that no summary hearing had occurred and that the applicant, represented by counsel at the time, had voluntarily withdrawn her allegations.

The request for reconsideration was denied as there were no compelling or extraordinary circumstances to justify it.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in the provision of services on the basis of ethnic origin and reprisal, claiming he was improperly given a parking ticket by a by-law officer at a polling station.

He named the Town of Richmond Hill and another municipal candidate as respondents.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not allege the individual candidate was responsible for the decision to ticket him or participated in the discriminatory behaviour.

Consequently, the individual candidate was removed as a respondent to the application.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision dismissing her human rights application for delay.

She argued that her medical condition, including depression and the effects of a head injury, contributed to her delay in filing.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was attempting to re-argue evidence already considered in the original decision, which had concluded her medical documentation did not demonstrate her disability prevented her from pursuing her legal rights.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed as the applicant failed to establish factors outweighing the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions.

The applicant filed a human rights application under s. 34 of the Code.

The respondents sought early dismissal under s. 53(8), arguing the applicant had previously filed a complaint with the Commission based on the same facts.

The Tribunal found that although the applicant had submitted a complaint form to the Commission, it was never assessed or formally 'filed' within the meaning of the Code's transition provisions.

The Tribunal also dismissed the respondents' arguments that the application was an abuse of process or barred by s. 45.1 due to a withdrawn labour relations application.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the applicant's parallel transition application under s. 53(5), as no complaint had been formally filed with the Commission.