HRTO 2011

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

The applicant requested that the application be deferred pending the outcome of an appeal regarding his Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) claim for loss of earnings benefits.

The Tribunal granted the deferral, noting that proceeding concurrently could lead to inconsistent decisions and that the WSIB appeal outcome would be relevant to whether the application should be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking further particulars and alleging the applicant failed to meet disclosure obligations.

The Tribunal denied the request for particulars, finding the application contained sufficient details for the respondents to prepare for the hearing.

However, the Tribunal directed the applicant to immediately deliver and file her list of documents, copies of documents, and list of witnesses with summaries of anticipated evidence, to the extent she had not already done so.

The respondent filed a Request for Reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that upheld two human rights applications.

The respondent argued the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence, misconstrued evidence, and demonstrated bias.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding it was filed outside the 30-day limit without adequate justification, and that the respondent was improperly attempting to re-argue its case and repair deficiencies in its presentation.

The Tribunal also found the allegation of bias did not meet the required legal test.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be dismissed because the applicant failed to provide directed particulars by the deadline.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had attempted to email the particulars before the deadline but made a typographical error in the respondent's email address.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application for a clerical error, finding no substantive prejudice to the respondent.

The Tribunal granted the respondent a partial extension of time for document disclosure.

The applicant, a 17-year-old minor alleging age discrimination in housing, brought a Request for an Order During Proceeding to add the property owner, Havcare Investments Inc., as a corporate respondent.

The individual respondent, a property manager, and the proposed corporate respondent did not oppose the request.

Applying the Smyth test, the Tribunal found that the allegations could support a finding of a Code violation against the proposed respondent and that adding the party would not cause unfairness or prejudice.

The request was granted.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation more than one year after the last alleged incident.

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

The applicant argued the delay was due to fear of professional repercussions from his regulatory body.

The Tribunal found this explanation did not account for why the passage of time altered his situation or why he did not file within the limitation period.

Finding no evidence that the delay was incurred in good faith under section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code, the Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

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

The applicant failed to appear at the scheduled hearing on August 3, 2011, despite receiving notice.

The Tribunal stood the matter down for thirty minutes, but the applicant did not appear or contact the Tribunal.

Consequently, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination based on disability against his employer and several personal respondents.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss regarding five personal respondents because the application failed to identify specific acts of discrimination committed by them.

After receiving submissions, the Tribunal removed the five individuals as respondents, noting that corporate respondents are vicariously liable for employees' actions and personal respondents should not be named unnecessarily.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code after her employment was terminated.

Prior to her termination, the respondent had obtained an Initial Order under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) which stayed all proceedings against it.

The Tribunal found that the applicant commenced the application without obtaining the required written consent of the Monitor or leave of the Superior Court of Justice.

As the application was commenced in the face of a court-ordered stay, it was deemed void and dismissed.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

A hearing was scheduled and proper notice was sent to the applicant.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing and did not contact the Tribunal to explain her absence.

The respondents were present.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned due to the applicant's non-attendance.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability after his YMCA membership was terminated.

The respondent maintained the termination was due to a history of inappropriate behaviour and complaints.

Following a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success, the Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to articulate any link between the termination of his membership and his disability.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment following his termination.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant's union had filed grievances regarding the same termination.

The respondents consented to the deferral, while the applicant opposed it, arguing the arbitration might not fully address damages.

The Tribunal deferred the application, finding that the key issue in both proceedings was the termination of employment, and deferral would avoid adjudicative duplication and inconsistent decisions.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because her medications left her unable to focus or concentrate, preventing her counsel from preparing her.

The respondent objected on the basis of thrown away costs.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, noting that illness constitutes extraordinary circumstances under its Practice Direction, and scheduled a conference call to receive medical updates.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination, harassment, and reprisal with respect to accommodation based on the receipt of public assistance, stemming from his eviction from a housing co-operative.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application failed to identify specific acts of discrimination linked to a protected ground.

After reviewing the applicant's written submissions, the Tribunal found it plain and obvious that the allegations pertained to general unfairness and failure to follow bylaws rather than discrimination under the Code.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The respondents requested an extension of time to deliver their list of arguably relevant documents due to summer vacations.

The self-represented applicant objected to the extension.

The Tribunal granted the extension, finding that the applicant had not demonstrated substantial prejudice, particularly since the hearing was not scheduled until January 2012.

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

A hearing was scheduled and notice was sent to the parties.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing and provided no explanation.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The respondent filed a Request for Order during Proceedings seeking an order that documents and a DVD of security camera video disclosed to the applicant not be used for any purpose other than the human rights application.

The self-represented applicant opposed the request, misunderstanding it as preventing her from using the evidence in the proceeding.

The Tribunal clarified the nature of the request and ordered that the disclosed materials be used solely for the purposes of the present Application.

The applicant alleged age discrimination after not being awarded the position of Fire Chief.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal granted the applicant's request to amend the narrative of the Application on consent.

The Tribunal also granted intervenor status to the incumbent Fire Chief, finding he had the potential to be directly and significantly affected by the final decision.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in services based on disability (mental illness) after the respondent denied his request for an internal review.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intention to Dismiss because the application failed to identify specific acts of discrimination.

The applicant's written submissions failed to explain how the treatment he received was distinguishable from that received by persons without a mental illness.

The Tribunal dismissed the application at a preliminary stage, finding it plain and obvious that the subject matter fell outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal on the basis of race and disability, approximately three years after the last alleged incident.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss due to the delay.

The applicant submitted that the delay was caused by his mental health condition and ongoing negotiations with the employer.

The Tribunal found that it could not determine the issue of delay at the preliminary stage without submissions from the respondent regarding substantial prejudice.

The Tribunal ordered the application to be delivered to the respondent for submissions on the delay issue.