HRTO 2011

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his Application alleging a breach of settlement by the respondents.

The original application was dismissed because the applicant failed to file a copy of the written settlement as required by Rule 24.2 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the applicant did not satisfy any of the threshold criteria under Rule 26.5 and had only provided a letter indicating settlement discussions were at an impasse, rather than a signed settlement agreement.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment and sought placement in a bargaining unit position as a remedy.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 2189, requested to intervene to contest the Tribunal's jurisdiction to order such a remedy, as the applicant was not a union member.

The Tribunal granted the union leave to intervene, noting that a union generally has an interest in human rights applications involving bargaining unit positions.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application against a doctor and a Children's Aid Society.

The applicant argued that new medical evidence contradicted the findings that led to the child protection report.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, holding that the original decision was based on statutory immunity for reporting and a lack of connection to Code grounds, meaning the new medical evidence would not affect the outcome.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the corporate and personal respondents.

One personal respondent, Sarah Jaikishun, failed to file a Response by the deadline.

The Tribunal directed the corporate respondent to deliver the Interim Decision to Ms. Jaikishun and granted her 14 days to file a Response and explain the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice to her under Rule 5.5.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability against her employer, a management company, and the WSIB.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss regarding jurisdiction and delay.

The Tribunal dismissed the claims against the WSIB, finding that the adjudicative decisions of a statutory tribunal do not constitute "services" under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal also dismissed the allegations relating to the applicant's first workplace injury as they were filed outside the one-year limitation period without a good faith explanation for the delay.

The applicant was ordered to provide further particulars regarding her remaining allegations of failure to accommodate following her second injury.

The applicant filed a request for reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application under section 45.1 of the Code.

The original application was dismissed because the substance of the claims regarding accommodation and termination had been appropriately dealt with in another proceeding.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that the applicant's submissions merely disagreed with the original conclusions and did not meet any of the required criteria for reconsideration under the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a previous decision that dismissed his human rights application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant argued that the Tribunal erred in concluding the application did not fall under the social area of services.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the applicant provided no new evidence or facts that could not reasonably have been obtained earlier, and was merely attempting to reargue his case.

The respondents requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found they had breached the Human Rights Code.

The respondents had failed to participate in the original proceedings, claiming they feared the impact on pending criminal charges against the personal respondent.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no new facts were presented and the respondents failed to provide an adequate explanation for their failure to participate or request a deferral.

The Tribunal held that the respondents' inaction did not outweigh the public interest in the finality of decisions.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, and ethnic origin, objecting to a reference to her film on an unofficial website.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss to determine if the application fell within its jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that the applicant made no allegations of acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Code and that the website in question was not affiliated with the respondent.

The application was dismissed as being outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The respondents requested an order dismissing the applicant's human rights application on the basis that it was duplicative of another application alleging contravention of a settlement agreement, or alternatively, that the applications be consolidated.

The Tribunal found the legal issues in the two applications were distinct, as one alleged breach of contract under s. 45.9 of the Code and the other alleged discrimination and reprisal under ss. 1 and 8.

The request to dismiss was denied, but given the factual overlap, the Tribunal ordered the applications to be processed together and heard by the same adjudicator.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing and a six-month deferral of his human rights application to explore a civil action, class action, and grievance under a collective agreement.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request because the applicant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances as required by the Practice Direction.

The Tribunal also denied the deferral request because there was no ongoing grievance or other legal proceeding to defer to, and the matter was already at an advanced stage.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal regarding the employer's uniform policy.

The applicant's union requested intervenor status, which the applicant partially opposed.

The Tribunal granted the union intervenor status, noting its interest as the exclusive bargaining agent.

The Tribunal also noted a similar application filed by the applicant's co-worker and directed the parties to provide submissions on whether the two applications should be consolidated.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability regarding the employer's uniform policy.

The applicant's union requested intervenor status, which the Tribunal granted in accordance with its standard practice.

Noting that the applicant's co-worker had filed a similar application raising common issues of fact and law, the Tribunal directed the parties to provide submissions on whether the two applications should be consolidated.

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

The applicant's union, the Canadian Auto Workers, Local 195, filed a Request to Intervene, which the Tribunal granted, noting that a union nearly always has an interest in an application brought by a member of its bargaining unit.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Code or as an abuse of process, citing a Board of Referees decision denying Employment Insurance and a prior grievance settlement.

The Tribunal deferred the request to dismiss to the hearing on the merits.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondents.

The respondents failed to file a response by the deadline set in the Notice of Application.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondents of the consequences of failing to participate under Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The Tribunal granted the respondents an additional 10 days to file a response along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice.

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

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed or deferred because the facts were part of ongoing workplace grievances.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the applicant's grievance arbitration, noting that grievance arbitrators have the power and responsibility to enforce human rights obligations.

The Tribunal declined to rule on the respondents' request to dismiss under s. 45.1 or the applicant's request to add a personal respondent at this stage.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on race, colour, disability, and age.

The applicant's union requested to intervene, noting it had filed grievances on behalf of the applicant regarding the same allegations.

The respondent employer requested that the application be deferred pending the completion of the grievance process.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene and ordered the application deferred, finding significant factual and legal overlap between the grievances and the application.

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

A mediation was scheduled, but the applicant's representative's request to reschedule was denied.

Neither the applicant nor his representative attended the mediation.

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

The applicant failed to respond, and the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of previous Tribunal decisions that allowed his application in part.

The applicant argued that the Tribunal erred by refusing to allow him to expand the scope of his complaint in response to the respondents' amended response, and by refusing to consider his claim that the employer failed to accommodate his disability prior to the events giving rise to the complaint.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that its previous decisions were consistent with established jurisprudence preventing the expansion of a complaint's subject matter, and that the applicant had not established any grounds for reconsideration under Rule 25.5.

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

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to address preliminary issues.

The Tribunal dismissed the two applications filed in 2008, finding they were filed outside the one-year limitation period without a reasonable explanation for the delay, and were also barred by section 53(8) of the Code because they raised substantially the same subject matter as a previous complaint settled with the Commission.

However, the Tribunal allowed the two applications filed in 2010 to proceed, finding the applicant provided sufficient particulars of alleged discriminatory comments and close supervision by his acting supervisor to establish a reasonable prospect of success.