HRTO 2011

The self-represented applicant named the 'Toronto Police Service' as the respondent.

The respondents failed to file a substantive response, arguing that the named entity was a nullity, despite previous Tribunal rulings that the Toronto Police Services Board and/or the Chief of Police must respond in such circumstances.

The Tribunal amended the style of cause on its own initiative and ordered the respondents to file a substantive response on the merits, expressing concern over their failure to follow clear Tribunal directions.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to amend his human rights application to add new allegations of sexual harassment, physical threats, and discrimination based on accent.

The respondents opposed the request, arguing prejudice due to the delay of 24-30 months since the alleged incidents.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay and that the new allegations would significantly alter the case the respondents had to meet, causing prejudice.

The request to add the new allegations was denied, but the request to add further particulars to the existing reprisal allegation was granted.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the grounds of disability and sex arising from multiple workplace incidents, termination, and related benefit disputes.

The Tribunal held that the allegations were filed outside the one-year limitation period in s. 34 of the Human Rights Code and that the applicant did not provide a reasonable explanation showing the delay was incurred in good faith.

The medical evidence did not establish that the applicant's disability was so debilitating as to prevent pursuit of legal rights, and alleged advice from the Commission did not excuse the delay after the Code amendments.

The Tribunal further held that the termination allegations had been appropriately addressed in a prior labour arbitration and would also be dismissed under s. 45.1.

The applicant, a Town Councilor with a hearing impairment, alleged that the Town of Cochrane and its Mayor discriminated against him by failing to accommodate his disability.

The applicant requested a speaker system after ear buds proved insufficient, and used a tape recorder to review meetings.

The respondents confiscated the tape recorder and failed to install a speaker system.

The Tribunal found that the Town failed to meet its procedural and substantive duties to accommodate the applicant's disability up to the point of undue hardship.

The Town was ordered to pay $10,000 in general damages and review its accommodation policies.

The application against the Mayor personally was dismissed.

The respondents in a human rights application brought two Requests for Order During Proceedings.

The first request, to require the applicant to be represented by a next friend, was dismissed as moot because the applicant had turned 18 since the request was filed.

The second request, to amend the Response to include a defence based on the definition of age in section 10(1) of the Human Rights Code, was granted on consent, as the applicant did not oppose the amendment and there was no apparent prejudice.

The applicant filed an unopposed request to amend the human rights application.

The Tribunal granted the request and amended the application.

Consequently, the Tribunal determined that a summary hearing previously ordered on its own initiative under Rule 19A was no longer appropriate and cancelled it.

The respondents were given 21 days to file amended responses.

The respondent in a human rights application sought an order for early production of documents, specifically medical records, prior to the issuance of a Notice of Hearing.

The Tribunal denied the request as premature, noting that under its Rules of Procedure, document production is triggered by the Notice of Hearing.

Early production is only ordered in exceptional circumstances, which were not present here, as the respondent had already been able to file a detailed Response and the matter was proceeding to mediation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment leading to her termination.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because the termination and related suspensions were already the subject of a pending grievance arbitration before the Grievance Settlement Board.

The Tribunal granted the deferral, noting the complete overlap of issues and the arbitrator's jurisdiction to apply human rights law, while preserving the applicant's right to reactivate the application if the human rights issues were not adequately addressed.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario and one of its adjudicators, alleging discrimination and reprisal after a previous application was dismissed as abandoned.

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

The Tribunal held that the doctrine of judicial immunity shields administrative tribunals and their adjudicators from complaints about their conduct in an adjudicative capacity, even where a breach of natural justice is alleged.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The respondent union requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates, citing a scheduling conflict.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the union failed to provide exceptional circumstances as required by the Tribunal's Practice Direction, and the request was made outside the permitted timeline.

The applicant requested an indefinite adjournment of a scheduled summary hearing due to ongoing medical issues and upcoming surgery.

The respondent did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's medical situation constituted exceptional circumstances warranting an adjournment, despite the request being made outside the standard 14-day period.

However, the Tribunal declined to adjourn the matter indefinitely and directed the parties to schedule the hearing for March 2012, making the new date peremptory on the applicant.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal on the basis of disability, claiming the respondent employer failed to provide suitable modified work and the respondent union failed to facilitate accommodation.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred because the applicant had concurrent workplace grievances scheduled for arbitration regarding the same events.

The Tribunal granted the request and deferred the application, finding substantial overlap between the facts and issues in the application and the grievances, and noting the risk of inconsistent findings if both proceedings ran concurrently.

The applicant filed a subsequent Request for Reconsideration of a previous Reconsideration Decision that had denied reconsideration of the original decision.

The Tribunal denied the request, citing Rule 25.7.1 of the Rules of Procedure for Transitional Applications, which prohibits subsequent requests for reconsideration of the same decision absent exceptional circumstances.

The Tribunal found no exceptional circumstances and directed the applicant to file a Notice of Application for Judicial Review if he wished to challenge the decisions.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability.

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 and granting them 10 days to file a Response with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to remove five personal respondents, delete a paragraph from his narrative, and amend his Application to clarify monetary relief.

The respondents did not file submissions in response.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting that the applicant sought to narrow the allegations and the respondents did not object.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the College and its Students Right and Responsibility Officer, alleging discrimination based on age, ethnic origin, and reprisal.

The respondents requested an interim order to remove the Officer as a personal respondent.

The Tribunal applied the Persaud factors and granted the request, finding that the College assumed vicarious liability for the Officer's actions, which were taken in the course of enforcing the College's policies, and there was no compelling reason to maintain him as a personal respondent.

The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination in employment.

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

The applicant provided written submissions clarifying that she had requested accommodation from TAL Group and was notified that Shoppers Drug Mart denied the request.

The Tribunal found the clarification sufficient to identify the alleged acts of discrimination and directed that the Application continue.

The applicant, operating a school for Somali-Canadian students, alleged racial discrimination after the respondent school board refused to renew its commercial lease.

The Board cited the need for the space for its own programs and a history of tenant complaints regarding the applicant's students.

The Tribunal found that the Board's reasons for non-renewal were credible, non-discriminatory, and based on legitimate operational needs and tenant conduct issues.

The application was dismissed as there was no evidence linking the Board's decisions to the applicant's race, colour, ethnic origin, or place of origin.

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

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to answer specific questions within 14 days, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant failed to respond within the specified time.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and wrongful dismissal based on disability.

She had previously commenced a civil action against the respondent relying on identical facts and seeking similar remedies.

The Tribunal found that section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code barred the application because of the concurrent civil proceeding.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.