HRTO 2011

The Tribunal reconsidered its previous order which had disposed of a transitional human rights application on the basis of a purported settlement.

In a subsequent contravention of settlement application, the Tribunal found that no settlement had actually been achieved.

Consequently, the Tribunal initiated a reconsideration of its own motion, finding that the lack of a real foundation for the original order outweighed the public interest in finality.

The order was set aside, reviving the application, and the parties were directed to provide submissions on whether the matter should be deferred pending a related WSIAT appeal.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking the production of notes and documents from a proposed witness regarding conversations relevant to the dispute.

The witness indicated she could not produce the materials without a Tribunal order or a freedom of information request.

The Tribunal found the materials arguably relevant and ordered their production.

The applicant's request to add an individual respondent was deferred until the applicant serves the proposed respondent with the application and request.

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

The respondent requested an order for access to the applicant's occupational health and claims management file before filing its Response, as well as an extension of time to file.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the respondent needed access to the medical file to meaningfully respond to the allegations.

Access was limited to the respondent's counsel and specific employees in the occupational health department.

The respondent was granted a 35-day extension to file its Response.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging he was removed from the respondent's pension plan due to his age.

He concurrently filed a complaint with the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) under the Pension Benefits Act.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the FSCO complaint.

The respondent supported deferral, while the applicant opposed it.

The Tribunal declined to defer the application, finding that the FSCO and the Tribunal were being asked to determine two different issues, minimizing the possibility of inconsistent decisions.

In an interim decision during an ongoing hearing, the Tribunal addressed a respondent's objection that the applicant was raising new allegations not contained in her original complaint.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's allegation that the respondent asked her to 'go out' with him was beyond the scope of the subject-matter of the transitional complaint filed with the Commission.

The Tribunal ruled it would not consider evidence regarding this allegation.

The Tribunal also provided procedural directions regarding the filing of documents, the attendance of a court reporter, and the calling of expert witnesses.

The applicant requested an adjournment of six scheduled hearing dates because his paralegal withdrew and he had difficulty finding a new representative.

The respondent opposed the adjournment and requested an order for a detailed list of documents the applicant intended to rely upon.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, finding no exceptional circumstances given the applicant had several months' notice to find new representation.

The Tribunal also declined to order a detailed list of documents, noting that any resulting prejudice could be addressed if the respondent objected to document admission at the hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sex discrimination in employment, initially seeking $30,000 to $40,000 in damages while self-represented.

After retaining a representative and participating in an unsuccessful mediation, the applicant brought a Request for Order During Proceedings to amend the requested remedy to $100,000.

The respondents objected, arguing the request was untimely and prejudicial.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the amendment did not change the nature of the allegations, would not affect the hearing schedule, and caused no clear prejudice to the respondents.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment in employment based on disability, marital status, and family status.

She also commenced a civil action for wrongful dismissal.

The human rights application was initially deferred on consent pending mandatory mediation in the civil action.

The applicant, now self-represented, requested to re-activate the human rights application.

The respondents opposed and sought dismissal due to the applicant's failure to comply with Tribunal directions.

The Tribunal found insufficient overlap between the factual issues in the two proceedings to justify continued deferral and ordered the application to be re-activated.

The applicant filed a Request for Order to amend his human rights application to include a claim for general damages for insult to dignity in the amount of $3,000.

The respondent consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request and amended the application accordingly.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application after she failed to attend the final day of the hearing.

The applicant argued she did not receive notice of the hearing date and that her recent retention of counsel justified reopening the case.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had ample notice of the hearing date and that retaining counsel after a hearing is scheduled does not constitute exceptional circumstances warranting reconsideration.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant filed an application alleging that the respondents contravened a settlement agreement resolving a previous human rights complaint about racial discrimination.

The agreement required the organizational respondent to provide specific anti-racism training to its board and staff.

The respondents failed to appear at the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the training provided by the organizational respondent did not comply with the specific requirements of the settlement agreement, as it was a general harassment training that did not specifically address racism or use an expert in racial discrimination.

The Tribunal ordered the organizational respondent to retain an external consultant to conduct the required training and to pay $1,000 in damages to the applicant.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, raising jurisdictional concerns regarding the timeliness of the application and the lack of specific acts of discrimination alleged.

The applicant was directed to provide written submissions but failed to respond by the deadline.

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

The applicant filed a Request for an Order to proceed with his human rights application, which had previously been deferred pending the conclusion of related criminal proceedings.

The applicant provided a probation order indicating the criminal trial had concluded with a conviction.

The respondent did not make any submissions.

The Tribunal granted the request to proceed and directed the Registrar to schedule mediation.

The complainant, a City of Toronto employee, alleged that he experienced workplace harassment and discrimination based on his ancestry, ethnic origin, and perceived Muslim creed, and that the employer failed to investigate his complaints.

He also alleged reprisal for filing a human rights complaint.

The Tribunal found the complainant's evidence to be unreliable and preferred the evidence of the respondents.

While one respondent admitted to using an isolated racial slur, the Tribunal found the employer's response—a verbal warning—was reasonable and did not constitute a Code violation.

The Tribunal also accepted the employer's non-discriminatory explanations for the alleged reprisals and found the employer's investigation of the formal complaint was adequate.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability (fibromyalgia) in the provision of ODSP benefits.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal dismiss the application on the grounds of judicial immunity, absence of a service under the Code, and lack of a prima facie case.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that judicial immunity does not apply to preliminary administrative decisions, the allegations regarding discriminatory policies fall within the social area of services, and the prima facie case should not be determined at this preliminary stage.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that summarily dismissed his human rights application regarding subway platform safety.

The applicant argued that new facts or evidence warranted reconsideration under Rule 26.5(a).

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant merely reiterated previous arguments and failed to present any new facts, evidence, or other basis to justify reconsidering the final decision.

The applicant filed an application alleging age discrimination and constructive dismissal after her hours were reduced.

Prior to filing the application, she commenced a civil action in the Superior Court of Justice based on the same facts, alleging constructive dismissal and breaches of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction under section 34(11) of the Code because the applicant had already commenced a civil proceeding seeking remedies for the same alleged infringement.

In an interim decision prior to a human rights hearing, the Tribunal addressed several preliminary issues regarding disclosure and hearing format.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to comply with document disclosure rules and to produce specific arguably relevant documents, though it denied the applicant's overly broad request for her entire personnel file.

Both parties were ordered to file amended witness statements that fully comply with Rule 17.

Finally, the Tribunal permitted the applicant's social worker to testify by teleconference but required her doctor to testify in person because his evidence was key and raised significant credibility issues.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the hearing on medical grounds following a complicated kidney transplant surgery.

The applicant opposed the adjournment and also requested orders to add a new individual respondent and compel a witness to produce documents.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding it appropriate given the respondent's unexpected and complicated surgery.

The Tribunal denied the request to add a new respondent because the applicant failed to deliver the request to the proposed respondent and did not provide substantial reasons.

The request for document production was deferred to allow the witness more time to respond.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on age and disability.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code because the applicant had already commenced a civil action for wrongful dismissal based on the same facts and seeking similar remedies.

The Tribunal found that the civil action and the application relied on the same facts and sought similar human rights remedies.

As section 34(11) is a mandatory bar intended to prevent duplicate proceedings, the Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.