HRTO 2011

The applicant filed a human rights application against three respondents.

One respondent filed a response, but the other two did not.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the non-responding respondents of the consequences of failing to participate under Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The Tribunal granted the non-responding respondents 10 days to file their responses along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice to them.

The applicant filed a human rights application which was deferred pending the conclusion of a WSIB appeal.

The Tribunal subsequently wrote to the applicant requesting an update on the status of the WSIB appeal and warned that failure to respond could result in dismissal.

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

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

The applicant requested an adjournment of summary hearings scheduled by conference call in two files due to unavailability.

The respondents opposed the request.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment based on the material filed and directed that alternative dates be scheduled.

The respondent employer in a human rights application alleging disability discrimination brought a request for an order during proceedings.

The respondent sought disclosure of an unredacted settlement document between the applicant and his long-term disability insurer, arguing the breakdown of settlement figures was necessary to prevent double recovery for loss of income.

The Tribunal granted the request, ordering the applicant to produce the unredacted document, as the settlement figures were arguably relevant to the issue of damages and for the purposes of mediation.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer pending the outcome of the applicant's grievance.

After the union decided not to pursue the grievance to arbitration, the respondent requested deferral to the applicant's duty of fair representation complaint under the Labour Relations Act.

Because the Labour Relations Act does not apply to police officers, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed that complaint.

Finding no other proceeding to which it could appropriately defer, the Tribunal ordered the human rights application to proceed.

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

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

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice by the specified deadline.

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.

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation session and did not communicate with the Tribunal to explain her absence.

The Tribunal subsequently directed the applicant to advise of her intentions, warning that failure to respond would 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 a human rights application alleging discrimination by court staff and a Crown prosecutor on the basis of ancestry, ethnic origin, sex, and family status, relating to the scheduling of his son's trial and the provision of disclosure.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to allege any facts that could establish a link between the alleged poor service and a prohibited ground of discrimination under the Code.

The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

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

The respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to dismiss the application, arguing that it is a federally regulated inter-provincial freight carrier.

The applicant did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal found that the respondent is federally regulated and dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application against the respondent police service for being untimely.

The applicant argued that she had recently obtained police disclosure containing evidence of discrimination and referenced a news article about another complaint against the respondent.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the police disclosure issue was already canvassed in the original decision and that the news article did not constitute new, relevant evidence under Rule 26.5.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing for his human rights application.

The respondents attended.

The Tribunal noted previous difficulties in contacting the applicant and his failure to update his contact information as previously requested.

Given the unexplained absence, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application as untimely.

The applicant argued the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence regarding the discoverability principle.

The Tribunal found no conflict with established jurisprudence, noting the applicant had substantial awareness of the alleged harm 15.5 years prior to filing his application.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

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

Before mediation, the respondent obtained an Initial Order under the Companies' Creditors' Arrangement Act (CCAA), which stayed proceedings against it.

The applicant requested that her application be stayed until the CCAA stay is lifted.

The Tribunal ordered the application stayed until the CCAA stay is no longer in effect, requiring the applicant to advise the Tribunal within 30 days of the stay being lifted if she intends to proceed.

The applicant sought to introduce similar fact evidence from other parents and students, and to summons a former respondent, Stephanie Payne, to testify in an ongoing human rights application alleging racial discrimination by the school board.

The Tribunal denied both requests.

It held that the proposed similar fact evidence lacked sufficient probative value to outweigh the prejudice to the respondents, as the complaint did not raise systemic issues.

The Tribunal also refused to issue a summons for the former respondent, noting it had previously determined there was no prima facie case of discrimination against her.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on sex and marital status by an arbitrator who ordered the partition and sale of his matrimonial home.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that it lacked jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that family arbitrators appointed under the Arbitration Act are protected by the doctrine of judicial immunity, as their ability to decide matters impartially would be compromised if exposed to Human Rights Code applications.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant alleged that the respondent's policy of not funding prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing for asymptomatic men constituted discrimination on the basis of sex and age.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

Relying on a previous decision that found the funding policy was based on medical efficacy rather than sex, and noting the lack of evidence linking the policy to age discrimination, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

In an interim decision regarding a human rights application alleging discrimination in the provision of services, the Tribunal addressed three preliminary matters.

The applicant's request to amend the application was granted on consent.

The individual respondent's request for an order compelling the organizational respondent to produce hospital records relating to her treatment of the applicant was granted under the Personal Health Information Protection Act, as the records were relevant to the allegations.

The organizational respondent was ordered to file its response, though an erratum later noted the response had already been filed but inadvertently omitted from the file.

The applicant requested that his human rights applications against the corporate and individual respondents be held in abeyance because the corporate respondent was subject to an Initial Order under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA), which stayed proceedings against it.

The applicant did not wish to proceed against the individual respondents while the corporate respondent's status remained uncertain.

The respondents did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal ordered the applications held in abeyance for up to one year, pending the resolution of the CCAA proceedings or the lifting of the stay.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on place of origin and citizenship, arising from the respondent's application of ITAR regulations which restricted his access to controlled goods.

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

The Tribunal declined to strike the applicant's Notice of Constitutional Question at this stage.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene, with the scope to be determined, and granted the Canadian Civil Liberties Association limited intervenor status to address whether the application of ITAR constitutes discrimination under the Code.

The Tribunal also set timelines for responding to a request for production and for submissions regarding a proposed witness.

Following a finding of liability that the respondent employer discriminated against the applicant by failing to inquire into his medical condition before summarily dismissing him, the Tribunal determined the appropriate remedies.

The Tribunal declined to order reinstatement, noting the employer had already made a non-discriminatory decision to terminate the applicant without cause months prior.

The Tribunal awarded $14,235 for lost wages representing a six-month notice period less mitigation, and $12,000 as compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

Requests for public interest remedies were dismissed.