HRTO 2011

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination in employment against 12 respondents.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Incomplete Application and a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application failed to identify specific acts of discrimination by the named individuals.

The applicant filed supplementary information narrowing the respondents to five individuals and two organizations, and specifying the reasons for their inclusion.

The Tribunal found the supplementary information sufficient to process the application and directed that it be delivered to the respondents.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting that the respondent appeared to be a federally regulated business, and directed the applicant to provide written submissions on the jurisdictional issue.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice.

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

The applicant requested an adjournment of a preliminary hearing four days before it was scheduled, citing late disclosure of documents by the respondents, lack of preparation due to medical conditions, and a desire to seek legal assistance.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding no extraordinary circumstances.

The late documents were mostly previously disclosed or legal submissions, the medical claims were unsupported by evidence, and the request for time to seek legal counsel was not made in a timely fashion.

The applicants requested a review of an interim decision denying their request for an adjournment.

The adjournment was sought because the litigation guardian resides outside the country and would be travelling.

The Tribunal found no basis to reconsider the denial, noting the lengthy history of the matter and the lack of information about the applicants' whereabouts.

The Tribunal also converted the upcoming hearing into a teleconference to address preliminary issues regarding whether the applicants could establish a prima facie case of discrimination based on age and family status.

The complainant requested an adjournment of his scheduled human rights hearing on the grounds of alleged adjudicator bias, the reduction of scheduled hearing days, the bifurcation of the hearing, and his intention to seek judicial review.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding no basis for the allegations of bias or misconduct, and explaining that the scheduling changes were administrative responses to the complainant's prior incarcerations.

The Queen's University Faculty Association (QUFA) requested to intervene in the application, which was granted as it has a significant interest in the outcome.

The Tribunal also addressed procedural issues, holding the applicant's request for an extension of time to file a Reply in abeyance pending comments from the other parties, advising the applicant that requests for documentary disclosure are generally premature at this stage, and directing the applicant to clarify whether she continues to be represented by her named representative.

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

She subsequently filed Requests to Expedite and for an Order During Proceedings to amend the monetary compensation sought.

The respondent did not respond to the requests.

The Tribunal granted the Request to Expedite, finding that the applicant's severe financial difficulties and deteriorating health constituted urgent circumstances.

The Tribunal also granted the unopposed request to amend the monetary compensation sought and abridged the timelines for disclosure.

The applicant filed a human rights application against corporate and individual respondents.

The individual respondent failed to file a Response.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the individual respondent to file a Response within 10 days or face consequences under Rule 5.5, including proceeding without him.

Additionally, noting a parallel complaint before the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the Tribunal directed the parties to provide written submissions on whether the application should be deferred.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of colour and ethnic origin after he was not hired for teaching positions in the respondent's Department of Mathematics.

He also alleged that the respondent breached a 2005 Minutes of Settlement and discriminated against him in three other interactions.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the respondent provided a plausible, non-discriminatory explanation for its hiring decision based on the superior qualifications of the successful candidates.

The Tribunal also found no breach of the settlement agreement and no discrimination in the other incidents.

The respondents requested that the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario defer consideration of two related applications pending the resolution of proceedings before the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board.

The Tribunal noted that the factual circumstances before the Board were identical to those raised in the applications.

To avoid concurrent proceedings and the possibility of inconsistent decisions, the Tribunal deferred further consideration of the applications until the Board's proceedings are resolved.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and age, more than one year after the last alleged incident.

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

The applicant argued the delay was in good faith due to post-traumatic stress and severe depression, submitting medical reports from 2001-2005.

The Tribunal found the medical evidence insufficient to prove the applicant was incapable of pursuing his rights in a timely manner, especially given his concurrent pursuit of a WSIB claim.

The application was dismissed as out of time.

The applicant filed an application alleging that police, social workers, medical experts, and the courts conspired to protect an individual who allegedly abused his son in 1994.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to explain how his own rights under the Human Rights Code were infringed.

The Tribunal noted it lacks jurisdiction over general allegations of unfairness or criminal cover-ups.

Furthermore, the allegations were out of time and the applicant provided no explanation for the delay.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in goods, services and facilities.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to take certain actions by a specified date, warning that failure to comply might be considered abandonment.

The applicant failed to respond.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

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

The applicant subsequently filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking the production of various documents relied upon by the respondent in her Response.

The Tribunal denied the request as premature, noting that under Rule 16 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, the obligation to disclose documents is not triggered until 21 days after a Confirmation of Hearing is sent.

As no Confirmation of Hearing had been issued and no special circumstances existed, early disclosure was not justified.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment by the police.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the applicant had also commenced a civil proceeding based on the same facts and seeking similar remedies, including Charter damages.

The Tribunal found that section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code barred the application from proceeding due to the concurrent civil suit.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

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

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer the application because the allegations regarding accommodation and wrongful dismissal were also the subject of two ongoing union grievances.

The Tribunal noted that it generally defers applications where there is an ongoing grievance based on the same facts and issues, to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions.

Finding that the grievances were currently being mediated, the Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application pending their resolution.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability five days after the one-year limitation period expired.

The applicant argued the delay was incurred in good faith due to a mental health condition that prevented earlier filing.

The Tribunal found the medical evidence insufficient to establish that the disability was so debilitating as to prevent the applicant from pursuing his rights, noting he was able to pursue employment insurance and attend college during the same period.

The application was dismissed as untimely.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and record of offences.

The Tribunal previously directed the parties to file submissions on whether the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period.

The applicant failed to file her documents on time and subsequently requested an extension of time to respond to the respondents' submissions and to obtain legal assistance.

The Tribunal granted the extension of time.

The applicant requested reconsideration of an Interim Decision that dismissed his human rights application against the City of Thunder Bay for being filed outside the one-year time limit.

The applicant argued that the delay was incurred in good faith, citing new evidence of health problems and involvement in another legal proceeding, and claimed unfairness because the Tribunal relied on a case released after his application was filed.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the new information should have been provided in the original submissions and that there was no unfairness in relying on established jurisprudence.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

At a hearing before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, the respondent objected to the applicant being represented by an unlicensed agent.

The proposed representative argued he fell under a Law Society Act by-law exemption for providing pro bono services to a friend.

However, he acknowledged providing legal services in respect of more than three matters per year, which disqualified him from the exemption.

The Tribunal excluded the representative and adjourned the hearing on consent, issuing procedural directions for document disclosure and witness statements.