HRTO 2011

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

The respondent failed to file a Response by the deadline set in the Notice of Application.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondent to file a Response within 10 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 a human rights application alleging discrimination in services on the basis of disability against the Law School Admission Council (LSAC).

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because LSAC appeared to be a US-based organization with no connection to Ontario.

The applicant submitted that the service and requested accommodation were in Ontario, citing previous Tribunal decisions.

The Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the application should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and directed that processing proceed.

In an interim decision regarding a human rights application alleging sex discrimination, sexual solicitation, and reprisal, the Tribunal addressed several procedural issues.

The Tribunal permitted the self-represented applicant to call additional medical witnesses provided she filed witness statements by a specified deadline.

The Tribunal also ordered the applicant to disclose relevant medical and psychological records to the personal respondent, finding that her claims for psychological harm and special damages made the records relevant, outweighing her privacy interests.

Confidentiality conditions were imposed on the disclosure.

Finally, the applicant was ordered to provide particulars regarding her claims for out-of-pocket expenses and other allegations.

The respondents brought a request for an order during proceedings to remove the individual respondent, the corporation's president, from the human rights application.

The applicant did not respond to the request.

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal found that the corporate respondent could remedy any potential violations, the individual respondent's conduct was not a central issue, and there was no prejudice to the applicant.

The request was granted and the personal respondent was removed to prevent unnecessary complexity.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination and harassment in employment on the grounds of reprisal.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intention to Dismiss because the application failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination based on a protected ground under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant's submissions described a toxic work environment and bullying but did not link the treatment to a protected ground or provide evidence of reprisal within the meaning of the Code.

The Tribunal dismissed the application at the preliminary stage for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing for family and medical reasons.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario denied the request, noting it was made well beyond the five-day period following the Notice of Hearing and lacked particulars to establish exceptional circumstances.

The parties were directed to be prepared to address the respondent's request for dismissal at the commencement of the hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination.

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

The applicant's union filed submissions in support of deferral.

The Tribunal deferred the application to avoid adjudicative duplication, noting that grievance arbitrators have the power and responsibility to enforce human rights obligations.

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

The respondent failed to file a Response within the required timeframe and failed to respond to a subsequent Interim Decision directing it to do so.

The Tribunal found that the respondent had received notice and chose not to participate.

Pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal deemed the respondent to have waived all rights to further notice or participation and ordered that the matter proceed to an in-person hearing without the respondent.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on association with a person with a disability.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for apparent lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant responded with submissions and a request to amend the application to add family status and marital status, alleging she was asked inappropriate questions during a job interview.

The Tribunal found no plain and obvious lack of jurisdiction and granted the request to amend, noting the application had not yet been served on the respondent.

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

The Orangeville Police Association requested intervenor status, which the Tribunal granted, noting the union's significant interest and ability to assist the Tribunal.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred pending the outcome of outstanding Police Services Act charges against the applicant.

The Tribunal granted the deferral to avoid adjudicative duplication, finding a significant factual overlap between the allegations of reprisal and the subject matter of the Police Services Act charges.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of age contrary to the Human Rights Code after failing to advance past the assignment phase of a job competition for a Program Effectiveness Analyst position.

The applicant argued his experience was devalued as dated, the assignment unfairly favoured younger candidates who might have access to a recent master's thesis, and the process lacked objective standards.

The Tribunal found that while the competition was flawed and internal candidates were advantaged by the assignment question, there was insufficient evidence to establish that age was a factor in the applicant's failure to advance.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination against the employer and union.

The employer requested early dismissal under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, citing a prior arbitration decision.

The union requested dismissal on the basis of no reasonable prospect of success.

In response, the applicant filed a Notice of Constitutional Question arguing s. 45.1 violates s. 7 of the Charter.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision scheduling a teleconference hearing to determine the dismissal requests and the constitutional question, and provided instructions for the Attorneys General should they choose to intervene.

The applicant, a commercial truck driver, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability after his physician reported to the Ministry of Transportation that he consumed six alcoholic beverages a day and noted a possible diagnosis of alcoholism, resulting in the suspension of his license.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal found that disagreeing with a clinical diagnosis, even if based on an error of fact, does not constitute discrimination under the Code absent additional indicators.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on place of origin and creed by his former employer, a professional association, and others, relating to events between 2000 and 2007.

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

The Tribunal found that the continuing effects of a negative reference did not constitute a continuing contravention.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, concluding that the seven to eight-year delay was not incurred in good faith, as the applicant was sophisticated and aware of his options for pursuing his rights.

In an interim decision regarding a human rights application alleging disability discrimination, the respondents sought disclosure of the applicant's medical records, including an Independent Medical Examination (IME).

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to produce the medical records and the IME, finding them arguably relevant to the issues of disability and accommodation.

However, the Tribunal permitted the applicant to redact highly sensitive personal information regarding family relationships from the IME.

The Tribunal also directed the parties to file amended witness statements that comply with the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant, a male teacher, alleged that the respondent union's policies dedicating 6% of its budget to women-only training and reserving 5 of 14 executive positions for women constituted sex discrimination.

The respondent requested a summary hearing, arguing the policies were protected as special programs under section 14 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the programs were designed to assist a disadvantaged group (women) to achieve equal opportunity within the union.

Applying the Roberts analysis, the Tribunal held that section 14 provides a complete defence because the applicant is a member of a historically privileged group whose needs do not fall within the purpose of the special programs.

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

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

The parties subsequently signed Minutes of Settlement resolving both a university policy complaint and the Tribunal application, with the applicant agreeing to withdraw her application.

When the applicant failed to withdraw the application, claiming she felt pressured and coerced into signing the settlement, the respondents requested an order dismissing the application.

The Tribunal found no evidence of coercion, concluding the applicant simply had second thoughts, and dismissed the application as an abuse of process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in services more than one year after the last alleged incident.

The applicant argued the delay was justified because he had abandoned a related Superior Court proceeding shortly before filing with the Tribunal.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that awaiting the outcome of another legal proceeding does not constitute a good faith reason for delay under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application regarding workplace accommodation.

The respondent and intervenor union submitted that the applicant's accommodation grievance remained outstanding and should proceed to arbitration.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance and arbitration process, noting the significant overlap in facts and issues and the risk of inconsistent findings.

The respondent requested that one of its witnesses, who resides out of the country, be permitted to testify by phone at the upcoming hearing.

The applicant did not file a response.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that little prejudice would result and that the assessment of the witness's credibility regarding the reasons for the hiring decision would not be significantly impaired by phone testimony.