HRTO 2011

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

After indicating she could not deal with the case at the time, the Tribunal requested clarification of her intentions.

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

Consequently, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision that dismissed his human rights complaint as abandoned after he failed to attend a scheduled hearing.

The applicant claimed he was incapacitated by a flu-like illness and could not contact the Tribunal or the respondents.

The Tribunal denied the reconsideration request, finding that the medical evidence provided did not support the applicant's assertion that he was so incapacitated that he could not communicate his inability to attend the hearing or seek medical attention earlier.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates because a key witness would be out of the province.

The respondents consented to the request.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding that the unavailability of the witness did not constitute an exceptional circumstance under its Practice Direction.

The hearing was ordered to proceed as scheduled, with a later date to be fixed for the unavailable witness's testimony.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability and gender, as well as reprisal.

She brought a request for an interim remedy, seeking to be temporarily placed back to work on a specific shift with modified duties until a permanent position became available.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding no clear Code-related reason to place the applicant on the requested shift at this early stage of the proceeding, and concluding that the balance of harm or convenience did not favour granting the extraordinary remedy.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and failure to accommodate leading up to and including her termination.

The respondent sought to dismiss the application on the basis that the parties had previously signed Minutes of Settlement resolving a union grievance regarding her discharge, and that the remaining allegations were untimely.

The Tribunal found that the applicant freely entered into the settlement without duress, making it an abuse of process to litigate the termination.

The Tribunal further held that the pre-termination accommodation allegations were filed beyond the one-year limitation period and the applicant failed to establish a good faith explanation for the delay.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought an adjournment of a scheduled Summary Hearing and requested the removal of the respondents' counsel, alleging a conflict of interest because the counsel's firm had previously represented the union in grievances where the applicant was the grievor.

The Tribunal denied the request to remove counsel, finding no solicitor-client relationship existed between the applicant and the union's counsel.

The Tribunal also denied the adjournment request, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify delaying the hearing.

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

The respondents failed to file a Response by the deadline specified in the Notice of Application.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision providing the respondents with a final 10-day period to file a Response and an explanation for the delay, warning that failure to do so may result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Rules of Procedure.

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

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

The applicant received notice but failed to attend the hearing or provide an explanation for his absence.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in goods, services and facilities against the Office of a Member of Parliament of Canada.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting that the respondent appeared to be a federal entity outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant's response did not address the jurisdictional issue.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, confirming that the Human Rights Code only applies to matters within provincial jurisdiction.

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 respond to subsequent Tribunal correspondence inquiring about his intentions.

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 subsequently failed to respond to a Tribunal direction inquiring about his intentions with respect to the application.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending a grievance proceeding.

She argued that the respondent and the union failed to advance the grievance and made inappropriate requests for medical documentation.

The respondent opposed the request, arguing the applicant caused the delay by refusing to provide relevant medical documents.

The Tribunal denied the request to reactivate, finding that the dispute over medical disclosure within the grievance proceeding should be determined by the grievance arbitrator, not the Tribunal.

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

The respondents failed to file a response by the deadline.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondents to file a response within 10 days, along with an explanation for the delay, warning that failure to do so could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming the allegations accepted.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the grounds of ethnic origin and record of offences, claiming she was pressured to resign and denied reinstatement after reporting alleged fraud by a store manager.

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

The Tribunal found the applicant misunderstood the definition of 'record of offences' and provided no evidence linking the respondent's actions to her ethnic origin.

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

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing less than a week prior to the hearing date, without providing reasons for his unavailability or the delay in requesting the adjournment.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding no exceptional circumstances.

Additionally, due to the applicant's failure to comply with disclosure requirements, he was barred from filing additional documents or calling witnesses other than himself.

The applicant was ordered to confirm his attendance by a specified deadline, failing which the application would be dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, claiming the respondent employer forced her to work excessive overtime and failed to accommodate her medical restrictions upon her return from medical leave.

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 based on the same facts.

The Tribunal found that the civil Statement of Claim and the human rights Application were duplicative, asserting the same allegations and seeking overlapping remedies for the same alleged rights violations.

Consequently, the Tribunal determined it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the application.

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

The application was previously deferred pending the resolution of a workplace grievance.

The applicant subsequently withdrew the grievance and requested to reactivate the application.

As there was no longer an outstanding grievance process, the Tribunal granted the request and reactivated the application, directing the matter to mediation.

The applicant filed a human rights application but subsequently failed to participate in the process or provide updated contact information.

The Tribunal's correspondence to the applicant was returned as undeliverable, and the applicant did not respond to multiple requests for updated information.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The respondent's request for legal expenses was denied, as the Tribunal lacks the statutory authority to award costs.

The respondent requested an adjournment of a scheduled three-day hearing because a key witness, who made the decision to terminate the applicant's employment, was unable to travel from the United Kingdom for medical reasons.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the inability of a single witness to attend does not constitute exceptional circumstances to adjourn the entire hearing.

The Tribunal directed that the hearing proceed as scheduled, with the possibility of the unavailable witness providing evidence by teleconference or attending in person at a later date if necessary.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss regarding certain individual respondents, as the application appeared to lack specific allegations against them.

After reviewing the applicant's written submissions, the Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the allegations fell outside its jurisdiction, as the applicant alleged the respondents participated in a pattern of subtle racial discrimination.

The Tribunal directed that the application continue to be processed.