HRTO 2011

The respondents brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings to add the corporate respondent and remove the personal respondent from a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on ethnic origin.

The Tribunal noted the corporate respondent was already added automatically.

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal declined to remove the personal respondent because his personal conduct and conversation with the applicant were central to the allegations in the application.

The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed the human rights application on the basis of delay.

The applicant argued that new facts regarding the claimant's travel dates and language barriers justified the delay, and that the hearing process was unfair.

The Tribunal found that the travel dates were known at the time of the original hearing and would not have been determinative.

The Tribunal also rejected the applicant's claims of procedural unfairness, concluding that the applicant had a full and fair opportunity to present submissions.

The Request for Reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sexual harassment by the individual respondent.

The corporate respondent brought a Request for Order during Proceeding to dismiss allegations relating to an incident in 2006 due to delay.

The Tribunal found that the 2006 incident was not part of a series of incidents because there was a three-and-a-half-year gap and a break in employment between the incidents.

The Tribunal also declined to extend the time limit under s. 34(2) of the Code, finding that the delay was not incurred in good faith as the applicant had accepted an apology and regarded the matter as resolved at the time.

The 2006 allegations were dismissed.

The applicant, a condominium owner, alleged that the respondent condominium corporation's declaration restricting occupancy to a 'one family residence' forced him to discriminate against prospective student tenants, claiming discrimination based on family status and reprisal.

The respondent sought to dismiss the application based on a prior consent judgment and the Court of Appeal's decision in Kilfoyl, which upheld the same declaration.

The Tribunal struck the family status allegations, finding the Kilfoyl decision binding and determinative of that issue.

However, the Tribunal permitted the applicant to amend the application to explicitly plead reprisal and allowed the reprisal claim to proceed, as it was not explicitly addressed in Kilfoyl.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on various grounds.

A hearing was scheduled, and the applicant had previously confirmed her attendance.

However, the applicant failed to appear at the hearing.

After waiting the customary time and confirming notice was given, the Tribunal dismissed the application due to the applicant's non-attendance.

The applicant filed a human rights application but subsequently failed to maintain current contact information with the Tribunal.

Mail was returned as moved and the provided telephone number was out of service.

After the applicant failed to respond to a final notice warning of abandonment, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned pursuant to Rule 5.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

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

Following an interim decision directing the applicant to file a reply to the respondent's amended response and address a request to dismiss, the applicant failed to communicate with the Tribunal by the specified deadline.

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

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to contracts on the basis of disability.

The Tribunal scheduled a summary hearing to determine if there was a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to appear at the summary hearing, despite receiving notice and a direction that her attendance was required.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed as abandoned.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned due to the applicant's failure to attend.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application due to a delay in filing.

She argued that new facts, including the timeline of a Ministry of Labour investigation and advice from legal services, justified the delay.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to present any new determinative facts or evidence that could not have been reasonably obtained earlier.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the Landlord and Tenant Board, alleging that an adjudicator failed to consider her disability and the landlord's duty to accommodate when dismissing her tenancy application.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the doctrine of judicial immunity applies to adjudicators of the Landlord and Tenant Board acting in the exercise of their statutory duties.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code but failed to attend a scheduled mediation session.

The Tribunal subsequently directed the applicant to advise of his intentions, warning that failure to respond would result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant did not respond.

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

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

The Tribunal had previously deferred the application pending the conclusion of ongoing grievance proceedings.

The Tribunal subsequently sent multiple communications to the applicant requesting an update on the status of the grievance proceedings, warning that failure to respond could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond to the communications.

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

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code but subsequently moved out of Ontario and joined the military.

She advised the Tribunal she could not attend the scheduled hearing in person and requested to proceed in writing.

The Tribunal previously ruled an in-person hearing was required to assess credibility and directed her to provide alternate dates.

After failing to provide alternate dates despite extensions, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

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

The Tribunal attempted to contact the applicant to schedule mediation, but mail was returned as undeliverable and the applicant failed to respond to email communications.

After warning the applicant that failure to respond would result in abandonment, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

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

She failed to attend a scheduled mediation session and subsequently failed to respond to a Tribunal direction inquiring about her intentions with respect to the application.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission filed a Request for Order during Proceedings seeking to withdraw from the human rights complaint.

The Commission confirmed it had provided a copy of the disclosure material to all respondents and the complainant.

As no parties responded to the request and no transitional directions were required, the Tribunal allowed the Commission's request to withdraw.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by court staff during family law litigation.

The respondents requested the removal of two personal respondents from the application.

The Tribunal applied the Persaud factors and found that the overarching claim was based on a pattern of alleged discrimination by the institutional respondent, which had the ability to remedy any violations.

The Tribunal granted the request and removed the personal respondents to prevent the hearing process from becoming unnecessarily complicated.

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 applicant had signed a full and final release with respect to the issues in dispute.

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

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

The respondent requested an order compelling the applicant to comply with his disclosure obligations under the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, specifically seeking medical records related to the applicant's alleged disabilities and documents regarding his mitigation efforts.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to produce the requested medical and mitigation documents, finding them arguably relevant to the issues of accommodation and damages, but declined to order the production of an OHIP summary.

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

A hearing was scheduled, but the applicant failed to attend and provided no explanation for his absence.

The respondents were in attendance.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.