HRTO 2011

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

The respondent subsequently obtained an Initial Order under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, which stayed the proceedings.

The Tribunal ordered the application stayed until the CCAA stay was lifted, requiring the applicant to advise the Tribunal of her intention to proceed within 30 days of the stay's expiration.

The CCAA stay ended and the respondent was placed into receivership.

The applicant failed to make submissions within the required timeframe, and the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration after withdrawing his Application, stating his intention was to file a new Application against a franchisee on behalf of himself and a minor with serious disabilities.

The Tribunal ordered that initials be substituted for the applicant's name in this and previous decisions to protect the minor's privacy.

The Tribunal also noted that leave is not required to file a new Application.

The applicant alleged that the respondent Children's Aid Society discriminated against him on the basis of race, ancestry, and ethnic origin by failing to involve his band and community and failing to become familiar with his Haudenosaunee traditions, contrary to Part 10 of the Child and Family Services Act.

The respondent requested early dismissal of these allegations under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing they had been dealt with by the Child and Family Services Review Board (CFSRB).

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations, finding that a prior CFSRB decision and a subsequent settlement agreement before the CFSRB appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The applicant was directed to provide particulars regarding his remaining reprisal allegations.

The applicant requested to reactivate her human rights application after the Landlord and Tenant Board issued a decision on a parallel application.

The respondent opposed reactivation because the LTB decision was stayed pending a review.

The Tribunal extended the deferral of the human rights application until the LTB review process is completed.

The applicant, a Black pastor, alleged racial discrimination by two police officers during his arrest for fraud related to his church's charitable status.

He claimed the officers used excessive force, made racist comments, and subjected him to a humiliating strip search.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence lacked credibility and reliability, preferring the officers' testimony.

The Tribunal concluded the officers had reasonable grounds for the arrest based on the fraud complaint and the applicant's evasive behaviour, and that race was not a factor in their actions.

The applications of the pastor and other church board members were dismissed.

The respondents brought a request to dismiss allegations concerning an incident on May 6, 2009, arguing they fell outside the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant did not file a response or provide an explanation for the delay.

The Tribunal found no basis to conclude the delay was incurred in good faith and dismissed the allegations relating to the May 6, 2009 incident.

The balance of the application was permitted to proceed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability regarding the respondent's application of its Attendance Management Program.

The applicant's union, CUPE Local 79, requested to intervene.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene, noting that a bargaining agent nearly always has an interest in such applications.

Additionally, because the applicant had filed a grievance concerning the same subject matter, and neither the applicant nor the union opposed deferral, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment and services on the basis of disability, ten years after the last incident.

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

The applicant argued he was pursuing WSIB appeals.

The Tribunal found that waiting for other legal proceedings does not constitute a good faith explanation for delay.

The application was dismissed as the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant had three outstanding workplace grievances based on the same facts and issues.

The applicant opposed deferral, citing delay and personal hardship, while the respondents and the applicant's union supported deferral.

The Tribunal found significant overlap between the application and the grievances, which were proceeding to mediation and arbitration.

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

The applicant requested to reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the outcome of his grievances before the Public Service Grievance Board.

Following the dismissal of his grievances, the applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to reactivate the matter.

The respondent did not oppose the request.

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

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability after his personal items, including clothing and money, were lost while he was a patient in the respondent's Crisis Unit.

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

The Tribunal found that while the applicant was dissatisfied with the loss and the respondent's policies, there was no evidence linking the loss of his items to his disability.

The application was dismissed.

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

She originally named her former employer and an employment agency together as a single respondent.

After the employer clarified that the employment agency was a separate legal entity, the applicant brought a request for an order during proceedings to add the employment agency as a respondent.

Applying the three-part test from Smyth, the Tribunal found that the applicant alleged facts that could support a Code violation by the agency, and that adding the agency at this early stage of the proceedings would not cause unfair prejudice.

The request to add the employment agency as a respondent was granted.

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled summary hearing by teleconference.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

Shortly after the hearing, the applicant contacted the Tribunal, explaining he had attempted to connect at the scheduled time but in his local time zone (Central Standard Time) rather than Eastern Standard Time.

The Tribunal treated this correspondence as a request for reconsideration and directed the respondent to provide submissions.

The respondent requested an adjournment of a scheduled summary hearing due to a scheduling conflict that arose for counsel.

The applicant consented to the adjournment.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that under its Practice Direction, adjournments are only granted in exceptional circumstances, even on consent.

The respondent failed to demonstrate any exceptional circumstances to justify the late adjournment request.

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

The applicant subsequently filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to add the Toronto Community Housing Corporation as a respondent.

As the original respondent and the proposed respondent consented to the request, the Tribunal granted the order and added the Toronto Community Housing Corporation as a respondent party.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application.

She alleged that the hearing process was unfair, that the adjudicator displayed bias, and that the decision contained factual errors and failed to address all evidence.

The Tribunal found no basis to conclude that the hearing procedure or the final decision conflicted with established jurisprudence or procedure.

The adjudicator's findings of fact and credibility assessments were not proper grounds for reconsideration, and the request was dismissed.

The respondent employer filed Requests for an Order During Proceedings to remove the individually named respondents and to consolidate two human rights applications filed by the applicant.

The Tribunal granted the request to remove the personal respondents, finding that the employer accepted vicarious liability and there was no compelling reason to keep them as parties.

The Tribunal also consolidated the two applications, noting significant overlap in facts and law, and finding no prejudice to the parties.

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

The events in question occurred primarily between 1999 and 2004, with some possible references to 2009, but the application was not filed until significantly later.

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

The applicant claimed her delay was due to mental health issues, but provided no medical evidence and did not explain why she was able to pursue other complex legal claims during the same period.

The Tribunal found no evidence that the delay was incurred in good faith and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed an application alleging age discrimination regarding the respondent's policy on retiree medical benefits.

The respondent requested deferral pending a related judicial review before the Divisional Court, and the applicant's union requested intervenor status.

The Tribunal granted the union leave to intervene and, with the consent of all parties, deferred the application pending the outcome of the judicial review proceeding.

The applicants filed 81 applications alleging that the survivor benefit provisions of the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan discriminated against them on the basis of sex and marital status.

The respondent requested early dismissal of the applications on the basis that they were filed outside the limitation period.

The Tribunal ordered that one application proceed as a lead case on the issue of delay, and held the remaining 80 applications in abeyance pending that determination.