HRTO 2011

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex, claiming her employment was terminated after she advised her manager she was pregnant.

She also filed a Request to Expedite Proceedings due to a history of miscarriages, stress, and severe financial hardship resulting from the termination.

The respondent agreed to work towards expediting the proceeding.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the applicant's health issues and financial difficulties constituted urgent circumstances that could affect the fair and just resolution of the application.

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

The applicant also had a concurrent grievance proceeding commenced by his union based on the same facts.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer, to which the union filed written submissions in support.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process, noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority to decide human rights claims.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by her insurance company after a dispute over a home inspection led to the non-renewal of her insurance.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application did not identify any specific acts of discrimination based on a prohibited ground.

The applicant's response alleged general racism in her community and reprisal, but failed to articulate a right under the Code that she was enforcing.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant requested that her human rights hearing, scheduled for September 2011, be expedited to June 2011 due to a pending eviction and personal stress.

The Tribunal treated the request as a motion to expedite.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the circumstances were not truly urgent so as to warrant giving the application priority over others, particularly given the short timeframe requested and the respondent's objection.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and sex, related to pregnancy accommodation.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant's union had already commenced a grievance proceeding based on the same facts.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process, noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority to enforce human rights obligations and that deferral is the normal approach to avoid concurrent proceedings.

Following a successful human rights application where the applicant was awarded monetary compensation and future compliance remedies, the applicant sought an order for legal costs on a full indemnity scale.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario reviewed its statutory authority under section 45.2 of the Human Rights Code and section 17.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Tribunal concluded that, consistent with prior jurisprudence and the absence of specific Tribunal rules regarding costs, it does not have the jurisdiction to award legal costs to a successful applicant.

The request for costs was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sexual harassment and inadequate care by the personal respondent.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the resolution of a similar complaint filed by the applicant with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

The Tribunal denied the request to defer, noting that the College complaint was only at the initial investigation stage and did not include the respondent Hospital as a party.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment more than two years after the last alleged incident.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for delay.

The applicant claimed the delay was due to medical advice regarding post-traumatic stress disorder and erroneous legal advice.

After the applicant failed to comply with a Case Assessment Direction requiring medical evidence to support her claim, the Tribunal found no evidence that the delay was incurred in good faith.

The application was dismissed.

The respondent requested early dismissal of the human rights application, arguing it was barred by s. 34(11) of the Human Rights Code because the applicant had commenced a civil action for wrongful dismissal.

The Tribunal compared the Application and the Statement of Claim and found the allegations were widely divergent.

Because the civil action did not allege a breach of the Code or seek Code remedies, the Tribunal concluded the application was not barred and denied the respondent's request for dismissal.

The applicant alleged discrimination in housing on multiple grounds after being advised she was 'over-housed' under the Social Housing Reform Act regulations and required to apply for a transfer to maintain rent-geared-to-income assistance.

At the hearing, the applicant conceded that the alleged harassment was on 'humanitarian grounds' rather than Code grounds.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the Region of Halton and the related allegations against the Co-op.

The applicant then withdrew the remaining allegations on consent.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled summary hearing to allow her time to consult with the Human Rights Legal Support Centre.

She claimed that a personal injury prevented her from scheduling an earlier appointment.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant had over two months to prepare and that the medical documentation provided did not indicate her injury impaired her ability to prepare for or participate in the hearing.

The circumstances were not deemed extraordinary as required by the Tribunal's Practice Direction.

The applicant filed a request for reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application alleging workplace discrimination.

The request was filed past the 30-day deadline because the applicant was out of the country.

Although the Tribunal considered the late submissions, it denied the request, finding that the applicant merely disagreed with the original decision and failed to meet the criteria for reconsideration under the Human Rights Code and Tribunal Rules.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming the respondent terminated his employment rather than accommodating his workplace injury.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed or deferred because the applicant had a concurrent proceeding before the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding an Employment Standards Act claim for termination pay.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code because the other proceeding was not yet complete.

However, the Tribunal deferred the application, finding that the significant factual overlap between the two proceedings warranted deferral to avoid duplication of evidence and inconsistent findings.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to amend their human rights application to add the ground of disability and increase the claim for general damages.

The respondent consented to the amendments, subject to the applicant providing further particulars and the respondent having an opportunity to file an amended response.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the addition of the disability ground did not raise new facts distinct from the original narrative, and issued directions for the filing of particulars and an amended response.

The applicant and the corporate respondent both sought reconsideration of a prior Tribunal decision which found the corporate respondent liable for sex discrimination but dismissed the application against the personal respondents.

The applicant argued the Tribunal misstated evidence and held her to a higher standard of credibility.

The corporate respondent filed late and sought to introduce a witness statement as new evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed both requests, finding the applicant was attempting to re-argue her case and the corporate respondent's proposed evidence was not determinative and could have been obtained earlier.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, specifically that the respondent failed to accommodate her workplace injuries.

The respondent requested early dismissal, arguing the WSIB had appropriately dealt with the substance of the application and had exclusive jurisdiction.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for early dismissal, finding the WSIB did not consider the duty to accommodate under the Code.

The Tribunal granted the Union's request to intervene and deferred the application pending the conclusion of the applicant's grievance arbitration.

The respondents requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing because a key witness would be out of the country.

The applicant did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal noted that a witness being out of the country does not normally amount to extraordinary circumstances justifying an adjournment, especially when the hearing date was set months in advance.

However, because the Tribunal received the request weeks earlier but failed to process it due to an administrative error, proceeding would cause potential unfairness.

The adjournment was therefore granted.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant was directed to respond but failed to do so within the specified time.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment, having previously commenced a civil action for wrongful dismissal.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code or deferred pending the civil action, and alleged the applicant violated the deemed undertaking rule by relying on an email obtained during civil discovery.

The Tribunal allowed the applicant's request to amend her application, and denied the respondent's requests to dismiss and defer, finding insufficient overlap between the proceedings.

The Tribunal scheduled a teleconference hearing to receive submissions on whether relying on the discovery document constitutes an abuse of process.

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

The union representing employees in the applicant's workplace sought to intervene.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene.

The applicant sought to consolidate this application with a transitional application, while the respondents sought to dismiss parts of the application for delay and under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal directed that a half-day hearing be scheduled to hear submissions on consolidation, delay, and s. 45.1.