HRTO 2011

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking the contact information of two named respondents whose Notices of Application were returned as incomplete.

The Tribunal ordered the corporate respondent to produce the last known contact information for the two former employees to facilitate delivery of the Application.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application for delay.

The applicant argued that the original decision failed to consider her disability and its impact on her during the material time.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was merely restating arguments already advanced and considered, and failed to establish any of the grounds for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceeding to add a proposed respondent to a human rights application alleging discrimination in rental accommodation.

The applicant claimed the proposed respondent was involved in the decision not to rent to him and was inadvertently omitted from the application.

Applying the three-part test from Smyth v. Toronto Police Services, the Tribunal found sufficient allegations that the proposed respondent may have violated the Code and noted he was named in the original Commission complaint.

The request to add the respondent was granted.

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

The respondent requested dismissal on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release.

After the applicant failed to respond to a Case Assessment Direction requiring submissions on the request to dismiss, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability after being denied entry to a free public reception at a film festival.

The respondents maintained the applicant was denied entry because the venue was at capacity.

Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no evidentiary basis or reasonable prospect of connecting the applicant's exclusion from the reception to his alleged disability.

The applicant requested an extension of time to file a Reply, confirmation of her representative, and an order for documentary disclosure.

The Tribunal granted the extension of time and confirmed the representative arrangements.

However, the Tribunal denied the request for documentary disclosure, finding that production was not necessary to enable the applicant to file a Reply and that such an order would be extraordinary at this stage of the proceedings.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination and harassment in employment based on disability.

The matter was deferred pending the outcome of a union grievance arbitration, which ultimately awarded the applicant damages for lost income and injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect due to the employer's failure to accommodate.

The respondents sought to dismiss the human rights application under s. 45.1 of the Code, arguing the substance had been appropriately dealt with at arbitration.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the arbitrator had considered the totality of the events and their impact on the applicant.

The Tribunal also found that the applicant's remaining allegations regarding earlier events were untimely and not incurred in good faith.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application as an abuse of process because he had previously signed Minutes of Settlement resolving the issues.

The applicant argued the settlement breached the Code and that he lacked capacity to settle due to a psychiatric illness, relying on a newly obtained medical note.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant was attempting to re-argue points already decided and that the medical evidence could reasonably have been obtained prior to the original hearing.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the application on the basis that it appeared to be outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice within the required timeframe.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) on the basis that the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction, directing the applicant to respond by a specified date.

The applicant failed to respond to the NOID.

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

The respondents requested an order to defer the human rights application pending the completion of proceedings before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT).

The applicant opposed the deferral, arguing that the human rights application raised issues beyond those before WSIAT and that a deferral would cause undue delay.

The Tribunal found that while there was an overlap of facts and issues, it was not appropriate to defer the application indefinitely because no hearing date had yet been set by WSIAT.

The request to defer was denied, with leave to revisit the issue once a WSIAT hearing date is scheduled.

The applicant filed an application under section 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 failed to respond to the NOID by the specified deadline.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of record of offences after his employment was terminated.

The respondents brought a request for early dismissal, arguing that the applicant's peace bond did not constitute a 'record of offences' under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal held that a peace bond does not result in a conviction for a provincial offence or a federal offence for which a pardon has been granted.

As the applicant did not meet the statutory definition of 'record of offences', the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in housing on the basis of place of origin, ethnic origin, disability, and receipt of public assistance.

A summary hearing by teleconference was scheduled to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to attend the teleconference despite receiving notice.

Pursuant to Rule 3.13 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, the adjudicator dismissed the application as abandoned due to the applicant's non-attendance and lack of explanation.

The applicant, a union steward, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of ethnic origin and place of origin during a union election.

He claimed that a broken hyperlink to his biography in an email to members and insulting comments made by a union official at an all-candidates meeting were discriminatory.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was not treated differentially regarding the hyperlink, as another candidate experienced the same issue, and there was no evidence linking the events or comments to the applicant's ethnic or place of origin.

The application was dismissed.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

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

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

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

A Notice of Mediation was sent to the applicant, but she failed to attend the scheduled mediation session.

The Tribunal subsequently wrote to the applicant directing her to advise of her intentions and warning that failure to respond could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant did not respond.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed an application under section 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 failed to respond to the NOID by the specified deadline.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant, a continuing education teacher, filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of age.

He claimed he received lower pay and no benefits compared to teachers teaching the same courses to younger students.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting the application failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination related to the applicant's own age.

The Tribunal dismissed the application at a preliminary stage, finding it plain and obvious that the allegations were based on the ages of the students taught, not the applicant's age, and thus fell outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The respondents requested the dismissal of a human rights application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that a prior Employment Standards Act (ESA) settlement appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The applicant opposed the request, asserting that the ESA settlement only addressed pregnancy leave and statutory severance, not her allegations of racial discrimination and harassment.

The Tribunal found that while the ESA settlement constituted a 'proceeding', it did not appropriately deal with the substance of the application because it did not address the race and gender discrimination allegations.

The request for dismissal was denied.