HRTO 2011

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

The applicant failed to comply with the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure regarding document disclosure and witness lists.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring compliance within seven days, warning that failure to do so could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant did not comply or communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

The applicants filed human rights applications alleging discrimination by their landlord based on race, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, and reprisal.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicants had also filed an application with the Landlord and Tenant Board of Ontario (LTBO) raising the same factual allegations.

The respondent supported deferral, while the applicants did not file submissions.

The Tribunal deferred the applications pending the conclusion of the LTBO process to avoid adjudicative duplication and inconsistent decisions.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to goods, services, and facilities against a travel agency.

The Tribunal was unable to contact the respondent at the addresses provided by the applicant and directed the applicant to provide updated contact information or explain his efforts to find it.

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's directions or communicate further.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The respondent requested that the human rights application alleging sexual harassment be dismissed or deferred pending the outcome of the applicant's claim for severance and vacation pay under the Employment Standards Act.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application under s. 45.1 of the Code because the other proceeding had not yet dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal also declined to defer the application, finding no apparent overlap in remedies and insufficient information to determine factual overlap between the two processes.

The applicant, a former sessional lecturer at Georgian College, alleged discrimination on the basis of age, place of origin, and race, as well as reprisal, after he was unsuccessful in a job competition for a full-time professor position.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was not subjected to differential treatment during his employment and that the hiring process was based on objective criteria, with the successful candidate performing better in the interview and mock teaching assignment.

The Tribunal also dismissed the reprisal allegations, finding that the College followed its internal procedures appropriately when investigating his internal human rights complaint.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, which the Tribunal deferred pending the conclusion of ongoing grievance proceedings.

The Tribunal subsequently requested an update on the status of the grievance, warning that failure to respond could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

Although the applicant's union informed the Tribunal that the grievance had been resolved at arbitration, the applicant himself failed to respond.

As a result, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights applications alleging racial discrimination in employment.

He argued that his successful court action for constructive dismissal constituted new evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the court's conclusion on constructive dismissal did not affect the Tribunal's determination that the applicant was not discriminated against on the basis of race under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to amend her human rights application.

She sought to remove several grounds of discrimination, add the ground of disability, remove a personal respondent, and add a factual allegation regarding a question asked during her interview.

The respondents did not file a response.

The Tribunal granted all requested amendments, finding no prejudice to the respondents given their prior awareness of the disability allegations and the ample time remaining before the scheduled hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race, colour, and ethnic origin after a Crown prosecutor refused to withdraw a Highway Traffic Act charge when an interpreter failed to appear for his court hearing.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on jurisdictional grounds.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the actions of the Justice of the Peace were protected by judicial immunity, and the Crown prosecutor's exercise of prosecutorial discretion to not withdraw the charge was protected by prosecutorial immunity and did not constitute a service under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant, a former tenant, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing on the basis of sex, age, and reprisal.

The applicant claimed that the landlord failed to address a culture of feuding complaints and disparaging comments between tenants, including noise disputes.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the core issues were landlord and tenant matters regarding the quiet enjoyment of the premises, not discrimination under the Code.

Furthermore, the only comment allegedly attributable to the landlord's superintendent was out of time.

The applicant, a foreign-trained physician, alleged discrimination on the basis of age and place of origin after his application to the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care's Re-Entry Program for retraining in General Surgery was rejected.

The Tribunal found that the respondent evaluated the application using objective criteria, such as prior service in underserviced communities and physician supply projections, which were applied consistently to all applicants.

The Tribunal concluded there was no evidence that the applicant's age or place of origin factored into the respondent's decision, and dismissed the application.

The applicant requested an adjournment of summary hearings in multiple applications pending the receipt of a claims file from the respondent insurance company.

The Tribunal denied the request and directed that the summary hearings proceed as previously scheduled.

The applicant filed a human rights application initially naming the Cambridge Memorial Hospital, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, and the Superior Court of Justice as respondents.

Following a letter from the Registrar raising jurisdictional issues, the applicant withdrew the application against the Tribunal and the Court.

The applicant also amended her claim against the Hospital to allege that its failure to respond to a request for her medical file constituted a reprisal.

The adjudicator found it was not plain and obvious that the allegations against the Hospital fell outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction, allowing the application against the Hospital to continue.

The applicant requested the reactivation of a human rights application that had been deferred pending the conclusion of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) proceeding.

The applicant provided a WSIB Appeals Resolution Officer decision denying his claim for loss of earnings benefits and permanent impairment.

The respondent did not file submissions.

The Tribunal found it appropriate to reactivate the application as the issues were no longer being considered by the WSIB.

The applicant's union, Workers United Ontario Council, filed a request to intervene in the human rights application.

The request was unopposed by both the applicant and the respondent.

Applying established Tribunal jurisprudence, the adjudicator granted the request, noting that absent exceptional circumstances, a bargaining agent will be granted intervenor status when requested.

The applicant requested an indefinite extension of time to file additional information required by a previous interim decision, citing an urgent out-of-province legal matter.

The applicant also requested to add a new personal respondent.

The Tribunal denied the indefinite extension request, finding the explanation inadequate, but granted a one-week extension.

The request to add a respondent was denied due to the applicant's failure to provide the required information.

The applicant requested an Order During Proceedings to amend his human rights application to increase the monetary damages sought and to remove a party from the style of cause.

The respondents consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, amended the style of cause, increased the damages sought, and allowed the respondents to file amended responses.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application for abandonment and abuse of process after he and his representative failed to attend a scheduled hearing.

The applicant argued that he did not receive notice of the assigned adjudicator, experienced communication issues with the Tribunal, and alleged bias.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant had notice that his adjournment requests were denied and was required to attend the hearing regardless of the assigned adjudicator.

The Tribunal also found no basis for the allegations of bias.

In an ongoing human rights hearing regarding alleged discrimination during a mental health apprehension and subsequent hospital treatment, the respondents objected to the intervenor calling its own employee to give expert opinion evidence.

The Tribunal held that the proposed witness lacked the requisite independence to give expert opinion evidence because he was employed by a partisan intervenor supporting the applicant.

However, the Tribunal allowed the witness to give factual evidence regarding best practices.

The Tribunal also admitted late-produced medical records into evidence, subject to the authors being produced for cross-examination and the applicant producing the underlying clinical notes.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking to re-activate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the outcome of a workplace grievance-arbitration procedure.

The applicant argued that the grievance procedure was not being processed in a timely manner.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that dissatisfaction with the pace of the grievance process is not a sufficient reason to reverse the previous decision to defer the application until the conclusion of the grievance arbitration process.