HRTO 2011

The applicant filed an application under section 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.

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 and harassment in employment on the basis of disability, and that he was dismissed because of his disability.

The applicant's union had previously filed an unfair labour practice complaint with the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) arising from the same factual circumstances.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the resolution of the OLRB proceeding.

Despite the applicant's opposition, the Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application to avoid adjudicative duplication and the risk of inconsistent findings of fact.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of a learning disability, specifically regarding a lay-off and subsequent failure to accommodate.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to be filed more than one year after the last alleged incident.

The Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the application was out of time, as ongoing accommodation discussions could constitute a continuing breach.

The Tribunal directed the application to be served on the respondents and requested submissions on whether the matter should be deferred pending a concurrent union grievance.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, claiming he was not recalled for work because of a prior workplace injury.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application because the applicant had an ongoing union grievance dealing with the same subject matter.

As no submissions were received from the parties opposing deferral, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance process.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, place of origin, citizenship, and ethnic origin, claiming he was dismissed due to his ethnicity and union activities.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant had also commenced a proceeding before the Ontario Labour Relations Board based on similar allegations.

As neither party filed submissions in response to the Notice, the Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application pending the conclusion of the OLRB proceeding to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of ethnicity and union activities.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant had also commenced a proceeding before the Ontario Labour Relations Board based on similar allegations of unfair dismissal.

As neither party filed submissions opposing the deferral, the Tribunal ordered the application deferred pending the conclusion of the OLRB proceeding to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, and age.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed three preliminary issues.

First, on consent, an individual respondent was removed from the application.

Second, the Tribunal struck allegations relating to the denial of promotional opportunities that occurred more than one year prior to the application, finding the applicant failed to explain the delay in good faith and the respondent would suffer significant prejudice.

Third, the Tribunal denied the respondent's request to adjourn the hearing, finding that the applicant's late disclosure of documents still left sufficient time for preparation.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be dismissed as untimely, arguing that its records showed the only incident between its security personnel and the applicant occurred outside the one-year limitation period.

The applicant maintained the incident occurred within the limitation period.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the material dispute of fact regarding when the incident occurred could not be resolved at a preliminary stage, as it was not plain and obvious that the application was untimely.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to be filed more than one year after the last alleged incident of discrimination.

After reviewing the applicant's submissions, the Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the application was out of time, as the applicant alleged her employment was terminated within the one-year period.

The Tribunal directed that the application be served on the respondent.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race and age after mall security ticketed him for panhandling and loitering.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, questioning its jurisdiction.

After reviewing the applicant's submissions alleging differential treatment compared to Caucasian patrons, the Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the application fell outside its jurisdiction.

The Tribunal directed that the application be processed and delivered to the respondents.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging his employment was terminated because he intended to claim WSIB benefits for a workplace injury.

The respondent employer requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the outcome of the applicant's WSIB appeal regarding initial entitlement.

The Tribunal declined to defer the application, finding that the WSIB proceeding focused on causation of the injury rather than whether the termination was discriminatory, and noting that the WSIB appeal was not far advanced.

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

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, including the possibility of the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming the allegations accepted.

The respondents were granted 10 days to file a Response along with an explanation for the delay.

The applicant filed an application under section 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.

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

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

Both the applicant and the respondents filed requests for reconsideration of a Tribunal decision.

The respondents sought relief from paying prejudgment interest due to a one-year delay by the Tribunal in releasing the decision.

The applicant sought to introduce new evidence regarding his efforts to mitigate damages.

The Tribunal denied both requests, finding that the respondents had the benefit of the funds during the delay, and that the applicant's new 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.

In a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and marital status, both parties filed Requests for Order During Proceedings (RFOP).

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to amend her Application to include new allegations regarding the respondent's failure to continue benefits during an unpaid leave and its application of the leave of absence policy.

The Tribunal also ordered the respondent to produce a list of employees who were on unpaid medical leave without adjusted service dates.

Furthermore, applying the threshold of arguable relevance, the Tribunal ordered the applicant to produce medical documentation and correspondence provided to the respondent's third-party disability management company, as these documents were relevant to her allegations of disability discrimination.

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

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

The applicant received proper notice but failed to attend the teleconference hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The complainant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that upheld his human rights complaint but denied him a firefighter position and lost income due to his failure to disclose medical information during the hiring process.

The complainant argued the Tribunal failed to properly weigh the evidence.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding the complainant was merely attempting to re-argue his case and had not met any of the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 102.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her application.

She argued that she made a mistake by not accepting a settlement offer from the respondent during the hearing and requested that the Tribunal grant her the settlement due to financial hardship.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that regretting the rejection of a settlement offer is not a valid ground for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

Furthermore, the Tribunal noted it lacks jurisdiction to order a remedy without a finding of a Code infringement.

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

The Tribunal issued multiple directions requiring the applicant to confirm his intention to proceed with the application.

The applicant failed to provide a clear response or comply with the Tribunal's directions.

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