HRTO 2011

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

The respondents requested the removal of the personal respondent, while the applicant requested costs and an order compelling the respondents to attend mediation after they withdrew their consent to mediate.

The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's requests, noting it lacks jurisdiction to award legal costs and that mediation is voluntary.

The Tribunal granted the respondents' request to remove the personal respondent, applying the Persaud factors and finding that the personal respondent acted within the scope of his employment and the corporate respondent could satisfy any potential remedies.

The respondent requested an order to defer the human rights application pending the conclusion of an ongoing Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) proceeding involving the same facts.

The applicant did not file submissions in response.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting that deferral is appropriate to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions, and deferred the application pending the completion of the OLRB proceeding.

The applicant filed a human rights application against multiple respondents.

One corporate respondent, Honeywell ASCA Inc., failed to file a Response by the deadline.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing Honeywell ASCA Inc. to file a Response within ten days, along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice and deem the respondent to have accepted the allegations.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination and reprisal.

The respondents sought early dismissal based on a Memorandum of Settlement and timeliness, providing a heavily redacted copy of the settlement due to a confidentiality clause.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to immediately deliver an un-redacted copy of the Memorandum and the related grievances, as they are central to determining the effect of the settlement.

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, directing the applicant to respond by a specified date.

The applicant failed to respond to the NOID.

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

The applicant filed an application alleging reprisal with respect to services, goods, and facilities.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination or reprisal related to a Code-protected ground.

The applicant failed to provide written submissions regarding the Tribunal's jurisdiction as directed.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it did not fall within its jurisdiction and deeming it abandoned due to the applicant's failure to respond.

In a pre-hearing interim decision, the applicant requested that his witnesses be permitted to testify by telephone conference and that his medical witness be limited to 30 minutes of testimony.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that witnesses are generally expected to attend in person and that the applicant provided no reasons to justify telephone testimony.

The Tribunal also found that 30 minutes would be insufficient for the medical witness's testimony and cross-examination, ordering all witnesses to attend in person for as long as required.

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

The Tribunal scheduled a hearing and delivered notice to the applicant.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing and did not communicate with the Tribunal to explain the absence.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application on the basis that it was deemed abandoned.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking leave to amend their human rights application to include a $20,000 claim for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The respondent did not file a response.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting the nature of the amendments, the early stage of the proceedings, and the absence of apparent prejudice.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting that the respondent appeared to be a federally regulated business and the application failed to identify specific acts of discrimination.

The applicant was directed to provide written submissions but failed to do so.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability in the provision of education services.

In a previous interim decision, the Tribunal ordered the applicant's next friend to consent to the respondent's use of the applicant's Ontario Student Record (OSR) for the proceeding.

The next friend refused to provide unconditional consent and requested a Tribunal-ordered inquiry to monitor the respondent's use of the OSR.

The Tribunal denied the request for an inquiry, finding it inapplicable.

The Tribunal scheduled a conference call to hear submissions on whether the application should be dismissed as an abuse of process due to the failure to provide the required consent.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability and sexual orientation, as well as reprisal, after his doctor terminated their physician-patient relationship.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant provided only speculation that the termination was based on discriminatory grounds or reprisal, while the respondent provided non-discriminatory reasons for the termination, including a breakdown of trust and the applicant's complex needs exceeding the doctor's skills.

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

The applicant, a paramedic and union steward, crossed the picket line during a 2002 strike.

He subsequently faced workplace harassment from colleagues and filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of creed, claiming his Christian faith prevented him from withdrawing medical services.

Following a hearing with multiple witnesses, the Tribunal found the applicant's evidence lacked credibility and concluded his decision to work was based on opposition to the strike's utility, not his religious beliefs.

The application was dismissed as the Code was not engaged.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

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, and granted the respondent a final 10 days to file a Response with an explanation for the delay.

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

The Tribunal previously issued an Interim Decision directing the applicant to file submissions in response to the respondent's request to dismiss the application, warning that failure to communicate could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to file submissions or otherwise communicate with the Tribunal within the required timeframe.

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

The applicant, a former dispatcher, filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking further disclosure from the respondent, including his full medical and employment files, specific emails, and break schedules.

The respondent maintained it had already produced all arguably relevant documents, including the occupational health file and emails, and argued the remaining requested documents were not relevant to the reasons for the applicant's dismissal.

The Tribunal refused the request, finding the applicant had not established the arguable relevance of the employment file or break schedules, and accepted the respondent's assertion that the other documents had already been produced.

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

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because the subject matter was also the subject of a pending union grievance.

The Tribunal found significant overlap between the application and the grievance, which was anticipated to proceed to arbitration.

To avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent findings, the Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application pending the conclusion of the grievance process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal.

The organizational respondent filed a response identifying two individual respondents.

The applicant subsequently requested to withdraw the application against the organizational respondent only.

The individual respondents failed to file full responses as required.

The Tribunal ordered the individual respondents to file full responses and ordered all respondents to file written submissions regarding the applicant's request to withdraw.

The applicant filed an application under section 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.

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

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

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

In an interim decision, the Tribunal addressed two preliminary issues: the applicant's request to add her trade union as a party respondent, and the union's request to intervene.

The Tribunal dismissed the request to add the union as a party, finding that the applicant's allegations regarding the union's handling of her grievance did not raise any potential Code violations.

However, the Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene, noting that a bargaining agent generally has an interest in a human rights application brought by a bargaining unit member alleging discrimination in employment.