HRTO 2011

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment and termination on the basis of race, colour, place of origin, ethnic origin, and record of offence.

The applicant had also filed a grievance alleging termination without just cause, which was being referred to arbitration.

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

Finding clear overlap between the grievance and the application, the Tribunal deferred the application to the grievance arbitration process.

The applicants requested a fourth adjournment of their human rights hearing, scheduled for June 2011, on the basis that the lead applicant would be out of the country and another applicant had scheduled elective surgery.

The respondents consented to the request.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario denied the adjournment, noting that the events at issue dated back over four years and three previous adjournments had already been granted.

The Tribunal held that the parties' consent was insufficient to override the institutional interest in timely access to justice, and the reasons provided did not constitute extraordinary circumstances.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss Application (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 an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

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

The applicant failed to provide written submissions in response to the NOID by the specified deadline.

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

The respondents requested a last-minute adjournment of the hearing due to the sudden illness of their counsel.

The applicant opposed the request, arguing that the institutional respondent should assign alternative counsel from their law firm.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that counsel's illness constituted an extraordinary circumstance and that it would be unfair to require the respondents to proceed with substitute counsel in a complex case.

The Psychiatric Patient Advocate Office (PPAO) requested intervenor status as a full party in a human rights application alleging discrimination based on perceived mental disability by police and hospital respondents.

The applicant consented to the intervention, while the respondents opposed it, arguing the PPAO failed to specify issues, intended to act as an advocate, and raised systemic issues not present in the individual complaint.

The Tribunal granted the PPAO intervenor status, finding its expertise in mental health issues would assist the Tribunal, particularly since the applicant was self-represented.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment and reprisal.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant had previously filed an application with the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) under the Occupational Health and Safety Act dealing with the same issues.

Applying the factors for deferral, the Tribunal found significant overlap between the allegations and parties in both proceedings.

To avoid concurrent proceedings and the possibility of inconsistent decisions, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the OLRB process.

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

The respondent subsequently obtained an Initial Order under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA), which imposed a stay of proceedings.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the applicant to advise whether she intends to continue her application and to provide submissions on the effect of the CCAA stay.

The complainant passed away, and her representative withdrew after being unable to obtain instructions from anyone on behalf of the deceased or her estate.

The Commission attempted to contact the complainant's next of kin without success.

Given the circumstances, the Tribunal dismissed the complaint as abandoned.

The applicant, a driver, alleged his employment was terminated because a customer who complained about his performance had previously referred to him using a racial slur.

Although the applicant is not a person of colour, he argued he was perceived as such.

The Tribunal found that while the employer had legitimate performance concerns, it failed to investigate the customer's racial bias after being informed of the slur at the termination meeting.

This failure tainted the termination decision, resulting in a finding of discrimination based on perceived colour.

The applicant was awarded $5,324 for lost wages, but claims for reinstatement and injury to dignity were denied.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of age and reprisal against the respondent school board and several individuals.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination under the Code.

After reviewing the applicant's written submissions, the Tribunal found it plain and obvious that the application was beyond its jurisdiction, as the applicant only raised concerns about unethical and unfair behaviour without linking them to age or reprisal.

The application was dismissed at the preliminary stage.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing based on new medical evidence from his psychologist indicating he was psychologically incapable of proceeding without his primary witness.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, noting the potential consequences to the applicant's health, and directed the parties to provide availability for rescheduled dates in September 2011.

The Tribunal also extended the deadline for the applicant to file pre-hearing materials.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability, age, record of offences, and reprisal.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer pending the resolution of the applicant's concurrent WSIB claim.

The respondents supported deferral, while the applicant opposed it on the basis that the WSIB claim did not address all allegations, such as age discrimination.

The Tribunal ordered the application deferred, finding that the proceedings shared common underlying issues, particularly regarding the nature and extent of the applicant's disability and loss of employment income, and that deferral would prevent adjudicative duplication and inconsistent results.

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

The respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the completion of a grievance before the Grievance Settlement Board based on the same facts.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that it would not be fair, just, or expeditious to proceed with the application while the grievance process was ongoing.

The individual respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend his Response.

The applicant consented to the request, and the organization respondent did not file a response.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend the Response and directed the matter to mediation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging his employment was terminated due to a workplace injury and that the respondent failed to accommodate him.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter was already decided by the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB).

The Tribunal found that the OLRB had already made binding factual determinations that the decision to terminate the applicant was made prior to his injury for performance reasons.

Consequently, the termination aspect of the application was dismissed.

However, the Tribunal allowed the failure to accommodate claim to proceed, as it was not addressed by the OLRB.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging disability discrimination after the respondents denied his request for a two-bedroom rent-geared-to-income apartment.

The respondents argued the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's evolving requests and submissions of additional medical documentation constituted a series of incidents.

Because the final denial occurred within one year of the application filing date, the application was deemed timely.

The applicant filed an Application for Contravention of Settlement but failed to include a copy of the written settlement alleged to have been breached, as required by the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

Despite a Notice of Intent to Dismiss directing the applicant to provide the settlement and explain the breach, the applicant failed to do so.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as outside its jurisdiction.

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, directing the applicant to provide written submissions.

The applicant failed to respond to the NOID by the deadline.

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

The respondents requested an extension of time to provide available dates for the hearing because the corporate respondent's representative was out of the office.

The Tribunal granted an extension of time to all parties to provide their available dates.