HRTO 2011

The applicants filed human rights applications alleging discrimination by police officers during a violent altercation at a nightclub.

The respondents requested deferral of the applications pending the outcome of ongoing investigations by the Special Investigations Unit (SIU) and the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD), as well as criminal proceedings against one of the applicants.

The Tribunal granted the deferral, noting the substantial overlap in the subject matter and the statutory restrictions on the respondents' ability to disclose information during an active SIU investigation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in services by the respondent hospital, claiming two doctors prescribed her a controlled drug without her knowledge between 2001 and 2006.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for delay, as the application was filed in May 2010, more than one year after the last alleged incident.

The applicant argued she only discovered the drug was a controlled substance in May 2010.

The Tribunal found the delay was not incurred in good faith, noting the applicant could have sought the information sooner, and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination and also commenced a civil action for wrongful dismissal.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the outcome of the civil proceeding.

After several years of inactivity in the civil action and the applicant's repeated failure to respond to the Tribunal's inquiries regarding the status of the matter, the respondents requested that the application be dismissed for delay.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned due to the applicant's failure to respond to correspondence and deadlines.

The applicant requested an adjournment of his human rights hearing because he was incarcerated and unable to attend.

The respondents opposed the request, arguing the application was frivolous and the delay would cause prejudice.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's incarceration constituted an extraordinary circumstance beyond his control, making him unable to attend the scheduled hearing.

The request for an adjournment was granted, and the hearing was ordered to be rescheduled after the applicant's release.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The applicant argued that the decision was biased, misapplied the law, and ignored evidence.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to identify any new determinative facts, evidence, or conflict with established jurisprudence, and was merely attempting to re-argue her case.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant failed to attend a peremptory summary hearing by conference call.

The Tribunal had previously issued a Case Assessment Direction warning that failure to participate or provide medical evidence would result in the application being deemed abandoned.

As the applicant did not appear and provided no correspondence, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant, who suffered from colitis, required unrestricted access to the washroom.

She alleged that her employer and supervisors discriminated against her by failing to accommodate this need, and that she was harassed by co-workers who complained about her washroom use.

The Tribunal found that the respondents failed in both their procedural and substantive duties to accommodate her disability, and failed to properly address the harassment.

Furthermore, the respondents failed to accommodate the applicant when they terminated her employment while she was on medical leave without making further inquiries about her health status.

The allegations of reprisal were dismissed.

The respondent requested that the application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sexual orientation be dismissed as untimely.

The applicant argued that the conduct constituted a series of incidents, with the last incident occurring within the one-year limitation period.

The Tribunal found that the circumstances did not make out a plain and obvious lack of jurisdiction based on delay.

The Tribunal deferred the evidentiary issues relating to delay to be decided alongside the substantive issues at a hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging failure to accommodate and harassment by the respondent employer.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the outcome of an ongoing workplace grievance and arbitration process dealing with the same issues.

Despite the applicant's objections regarding the length of the grievance process and alleged employer stalling tactics, the Tribunal deferred the application to avoid adjudicative duplication and inconsistent decisions, noting that grievance arbitrators have the power to enforce human rights obligations.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled summary hearing, citing potential travel to China and a recent accident supported by a medical certificate.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the medical certificate indicated the applicant's restrictions had expired and did not support an inability to participate by telephone.

The Tribunal noted that if the applicant could travel to China, he could participate in a teleconference.

The applicants brought a human rights application alleging that certain City of Toronto zoning by-laws discriminate against persons with disabilities by limiting the availability of supportive housing.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission filed a Notice of Intervention with the applicants' consent under section 37(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The City objected, arguing the Tribunal should first determine its preliminary jurisdictional challenges.

The Tribunal dismissed the City's objection, holding that under section 37(2), the Commission is entitled to intervene as of right as a full party and does not merely request permission.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the ground of disability after being injured at work.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the determination of the applicant's appeal for WSIB benefits.

The Tribunal found that deferral was appropriate to avoid concurrent proceedings considering the same facts and related issues, specifically whether the applicant required disability-related accommodation.

The application was deferred pending the decision of the Appeals Resolution Officer.

The applicant filed a human rights application more than one year after her dismissal from employment.

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

The applicant submitted that the delay was due to incorrect advice from her former lawyer regarding the limitation period.

The Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the delay was not incurred in good faith and directed that the application continue to be processed, subject to further submissions from the respondents.

The applicant in a human rights complaint requested that the respondent's pre-hearing disclosure be excluded because it was delivered one day late.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding no prejudice to the applicant.

The Tribunal also declined to order further production at this stage, directing the applicant to first review the documents provided by the respondent and to file a formal request if he still believed relevant documents were missing.

The applicant was also directed to provide his own documents in a readable format.

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

She subsequently brought an unopposed Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend the application to include reprisal as an additional ground.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting that the facts supporting the reprisal allegation were already pled and the amendment would not delay the proceeding or prejudice the respondents.

The applicant filed a human rights application against his former employer, Ford, and his benefits provider, Great West Life, alleging discrimination and reprisal.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intention to Dismiss (NOID) because the claims against Ford appeared to be barred by issue estoppel from a 2009 Tribunal decision, and the claims against Great West Life lacked a connection to any Code grounds.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against Great West Life for lack of jurisdiction and directed the applicant to advise whether he wanted an oral hearing regarding the issue estoppel question for the claims against Ford.

The parties requested on consent to proceed with a deferred human rights application, following the withdrawal of a related application.

The Tribunal granted the request and directed the respondent to file a full Response within 35 days.

The parties requested on consent that the human rights application be withdrawn.

The Tribunal granted the request, withdrew the application, and closed the file.

The parties also consented to proceed with a separate deferred application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination.

After the respondents filed a Response and requested a summary hearing, the applicant sought an order to amend his Reply to address allegedly untrue statements in the Response, having recently obtained legal advice.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting it was made promptly, the proposed amendments were within the scope of reply pleadings, and the respondents identified no prejudice.

The applicant brought a request to add a retired police officer as an individual respondent to his human rights application against the police services board and the Chief of Police.

The respondents opposed the request, noting that the Chief assumed responsibility for the officer's conduct and that the officer's actions were done in the course of his duties.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding no compelling juridical reason to add the individual respondent, as the corporate respondent assumed liability and the officer's retired status meant fewer specific remedies could be awarded against him personally.