HRTO 2011

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging her employment was terminated because she was pregnant.

After the corporate respondent filed an assignment in bankruptcy, staying the proceedings against it, the applicant requested to add the owner of the corporate respondent as a personal respondent.

The Tribunal applied the three-part test for adding respondents and found that the allegations supported a potential finding of personal liability under the Code.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting that bankruptcy proceedings against a corporation do not shield individuals from personal liability for discriminatory acts.

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 proceedings, warning that failure to respond could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's inquiry.

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

The applicant filed an application under section 53(5) of the Human Rights Code.

Following an interim decision that dismissed several allegations, a preliminary hearing was held to address the remaining issues.

During the hearing, the parties agreed to an order dismissing the application and consolidating any outstanding section 34 applications.

The Tribunal dismissed the application on consent.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal based on his association with another employee who had raised human rights concerns.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed or deferred, arguing it relied on confidential information improperly obtained from the other employee's ongoing grievance arbitration.

The Tribunal found that the grievance arbitration involved overlapping preliminary legal and factual issues regarding confidentiality breaches.

To avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent findings, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the arbitrator's hearing on the motion to dismiss.

The applicant requested that her human rights application proceed by correspondence because she had moved out of Ontario and her military duties prevented her from attending an in-person hearing.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the matter involved conversations between the parties and would require oral evidence and cross-examination to make findings of fact and credibility.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to either confirm her attendance at the scheduled hearing or provide alternative dates, failing which the application might be deemed abandoned.

The complainant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The matter was referred to the Tribunal by the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

After the complainant failed to appear at a pre-hearing conference call and the scheduled hearing, and the Commission confirmed it would not adduce evidence, the Tribunal dismissed the complaint as abandoned.

The complainant filed a request for reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision regarding social assistance benefits and family status discrimination.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding it was an attempt to re-argue the case and did not meet the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

The Tribunal also addressed post-judgment issues, granting a minor correction requested by the Commission, clarifying the attribution of a word on consent, and granting the respondent an extension of time to comply with the original decision.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and failure to accommodate by his employer regarding a request to transfer to a location closer to his home.

The corporate respondent requested that the application be deferred because the applicant had two active grievances dealing with the same underlying facts and issues.

The Tribunal found that proceeding with the application would result in concurrent, overlapping proceedings and ordered the deferral of the application pending the conclusion of the grievance proceedings.

The applicants filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in the medical care provided to their deceased family member and the subsequent failure of the Office of the Chief Coroner to hold an inquest.

The Tribunal considered preliminary issues regarding the timeliness of the application and the naming of personal respondents.

The Tribunal found that the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period for all respondents except the Office of the Chief Coroner, and that the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The application was dismissed against all respondents other than the Office of the Chief Coroner.

The Tribunal also removed the personal respondents associated with the Office of the Chief Coroner on consent.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in housing.

During the proceedings, the respondents' representative informed the Tribunal that the subject property had been sold.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondents to produce a redacted copy of the sale agreement.

The Tribunal further directed that if the respondents take the position that the new owner assumed the liabilities of the building, they must provide notice of the application to the new owner and name it as an additional respondent.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination by the respondent organization on the basis of creed, sexual orientation, and perceived disability.

The applicant alleged that the respondent's chair made an anti-Christian comment, that the organization was dominated by Jewish and lesbian members who denied her an executive position, and that she was filmed without consent.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal also denied the applicant's request for anonymity, emphasizing the principle of open justice.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in the provision of services and housing on the basis of age and receipt of public assistance.

The respondents requested the removal of the Ministry of the Attorney General as a respondent and the deferral of the application pending a decision by the Social Benefits Tribunal.

The applicant consented to these requests and asked to add the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing as a respondent.

The Tribunal granted the requests on consent, amending the title of proceedings and deferring the matter.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The respondent failed to file a Response by the deadline set in the Notice of Application.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondent to file a Response within 10 days, warning that failure to do so could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming the respondent to have accepted the allegations.

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

After failing to attend a rescheduled mediation session, the Tribunal directed the applicant to advise in writing whether she intended to proceed.

The applicant called the Tribunal to state she would not be responding and failed to provide a written response.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant, a visiting university student with a learning disability, alleged that the respondent university discriminated against her on the basis of disability and citizenship.

She claimed the university failed to accommodate her by refusing to provide subject-matter tutoring, that her professors discriminated against her, and that bursary eligibility criteria discriminated based on citizenship.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the university made reasonable efforts to accommodate her up to the point of undue hardship, the professors' actions were based on legitimate academic concerns rather than discrimination, and the citizenship requirement for bursaries fell under the exception in subsection 16(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The parties jointly requested that the application be held in abeyance pending a review by the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care of issues covered by the application.

The Tribunal granted the request and ordered the application held in abeyance until October 1, 2012, to allow time for the Minister to review and consider recommendations from the Health Professions Regulatory Advisory Council.

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

Following the applicant's failure to comply with an interim order to produce relevant medical documentation, the Tribunal scheduled a conference call hearing to address the non-compliance and potential consequences.

The applicant failed to attend the conference call hearing or communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code but failed to attend a scheduled mediation session.

The Tribunal subsequently wrote to the applicant warning that failure to respond could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

After the applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's correspondence, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

The respondent requested to defer the applicant's human rights application pending the outcome of her concurrent claim under the Employment Standards Act.

Both proceedings involved the same facts surrounding the termination of her employment and alleged breaches related to pregnancy and parental leave.

The Tribunal granted the deferral to avoid adjudicative duplication and the risk of inconsistent findings, noting that the remedies available under both statutes are potentially similar.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that his union and its officials discriminated against him by failing to assist him with grievances against his employer regarding accommodation.

The respondents sought to dismiss the application on the basis that it did not disclose a prima facie case of discrimination.

The Tribunal found that the applicant merely alleged a failure to act by the union, without any factual foundation that the union's conduct was based on discriminatory factors.

The application was dismissed for failing to establish a prima facie case.