HRTO 2011

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to amend her human rights application to clarify and augment her damages claim.

The respondent did not object to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the proposed amendment simply clarified the remedial claim without prejudice to the respondent's position on the merits.

The applicant filed a human rights application against his former union, several union representatives, and a lawyer retained by the union, alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, creed, and association, as well as reprisal.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal found that the allegations against the lawyer related to professional negligence rather than discrimination, and the allegations against the union respondents did not establish a link between their actions and any discriminatory factors.

Concluding that the application had no reasonable prospect of success, the Tribunal dismissed it.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss Application regarding the personal respondent, as the application failed to identify specific acts of discrimination committed by him.

After receiving the applicant's submissions, the Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the application against the personal respondent should be dismissed at this stage.

The Tribunal directed that the Notice of Application be issued.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment contrary to the Human Rights Code.

A hearing was scheduled, but the applicant failed to attend.

The Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant had proper notice of the hearing.

Consequently, the application was dismissed.

The applicant alleged that the respondent discriminated against her on the basis of race, colour, and ethnic origin when it failed to hire her for a cashier position.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant argued that she was denied an interview after management saw she was black, and noted a lack of black staff at the respondent's store.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had established a potential link between the denial of employment and the prohibited grounds, and therefore declined to dismiss the application.

The applicant requested to re-activate her human rights application following the conclusion of an academic appeal.

The respondents agreed to the re-activation but argued the applicant's Reply was improper and an abuse of process.

The Tribunal granted the request to re-activate the application and found the Reply was not an abuse of process, though it permitted the respondents to file a Supplementary Response regarding a new allegation of failure to investigate.

The Tribunal also directed the parties to provide written submissions on whether the application was filed within the statutory time limits under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability regarding the respondent's refusal to fund in vitro fertilization treatments.

The applicant subsequently filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to defer the application pending the determination of a Lead Case raising substantially similar issues.

The respondent consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request and deferred the application.

The applicants filed human rights applications alleging discrimination in accommodation.

The Tribunal previously deferred the applications pending a Landlord and Tenant Board proceeding.

After the Board rendered its decision, the applicants sought to reactivate their applications.

The Tribunal directed the applicants to advise whether they wished to proceed and warned that failure to respond could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicants failed to communicate with the Tribunal within the required timeframe, and the applications were dismissed as abandoned.

The respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking new hearing dates and documentary disclosure, including medical notes.

The Tribunal granted the request to reschedule the hearing, which established new disclosure deadlines.

Consequently, the Tribunal found the respondent's request for documentary disclosure to be premature and denied it, noting the respondent could renew the request if the applicant failed to disclose arguably relevant documents by the new deadline.

The complainant sought to withdraw his human rights complaint against the Ontario Human Rights Commission and the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario granted leave and the complaint was withdrawn.

The applicant filed a human rights application.

The respondents failed to file a response by the deadline.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondents that failure to file a response within 10 days could result in the Tribunal proceeding without them and deeming them to have accepted the allegations, pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking to defer the hearing for 12 months, add six new individual respondents, and expand the scope of his human rights application to include additional allegations of discrimination.

The Tribunal denied all requests.

The Tribunal found no basis to adjourn the hearing, held that adding new respondents after six years without compelling reasons would be manifestly unfair, and refused to expand the scope of the application to include unparticularized allegations advanced years after the initial complaint.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application because two union grievances had been filed regarding the same subject matter.

The applicant submitted that the application should not be deferred because the union was withdrawing the grievances provided the Tribunal took jurisdiction.

The Tribunal agreed and ordered that the application not be deferred, conditional on the union confirming the withdrawal of the grievances.

The applicant, a victim of abuse with environmental sensitivities, sought to expedite her human rights application and requested an interim remedy placing her next in line for a specific subsidized housing unit.

The Tribunal granted the request to expedite, finding her housing, financial, and health circumstances truly urgent.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the request for an interim remedy, concluding that the balance of harm did not favour granting it, as it would prioritize her over others with the same priority status, and a full remedy could still be awarded at the end of the hearing.

The Tribunal also ordered that the applicant be identified by initials due to safety concerns.

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

After repeatedly failing to attend scheduled mediation sessions and failing to provide written reasons for her absences, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction.

The direction required the applicant's next friend to confirm attendance at a summary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed.

When no response was received, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, specifically denial of workplace accommodation.

The respondent failed to file a Response despite receiving a Notice of Application and a subsequent Interim Decision cautioning of the consequences.

The Tribunal ordered that the respondent is deemed to have waived all rights to notice or participation and accepted all allegations in the Application pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant was directed to submit additional materials and advise if she wished to make oral submissions before a final determination.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision dismissing her human rights application as untimely.

She relied on Rule 26.5(a), arguing that a newly obtained doctor's report constituted new evidence explaining her delay.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant failed to explain why the medical evidence could not have been obtained earlier, and noted that the doctor's letter did not support her claim that the delay was based on medical advice.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging racial discrimination by the respondent approximately 20 months after the incident.

The Tribunal considered as a preliminary issue whether the applicant had a good faith explanation for the delay under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant explained that he first pursued a complaint with the College of Physicians and Surgeons and only escalated to the Tribunal when dissatisfied with that process.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, holding that pursuing other legal avenues before filing a human rights complaint does not constitute a good faith explanation for delay.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging failure to accommodate a disability.

The respondent and the applicant's union requested that the application be deferred pending the resolution of three ongoing grievances concerning the same subject matter.

The union also requested intervenor status.

The Tribunal declined to defer the application, noting the lack of information regarding the progress or hearing dates of the grievances, making duplication of proceedings unlikely at this stage.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene, finding it had the requisite interest in the application.

The respondent condominium corporation requested that the Tribunal defer the applicant's human rights application pending the outcome of arbitration proceedings under the Condominium Act regarding noise complaints.

The applicant alleged that the noise complaints and the respondents' response to them constituted discrimination and harassment on the basis of family status.

The Tribunal dismissed the request to defer, finding that the Condominium Act process would only resolve the factual issue of whether the noise was a nuisance, and would not adjudicate the ultimate human rights issues or provide the applicant with a remedy.