HRTO 2011

The corporate respondent brought a Request for Order during Proceedings seeking the removal of four personal respondents named in the underlying human rights complaint.

The applicant did not file a response.

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal found that the corporate respondent accepted vicarious liability for the personal respondents' actions as former Board Members and had the ability to provide a remedy.

Finding no compelling reason to continue the application against the individuals, the Tribunal ordered their removal from the style of cause.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment, constructive dismissal, and interference with future employment.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed for delay, as it was filed more than three years after the last alleged incident of discrimination.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the multiple delays in bringing forward her allegations and that the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The application was dismissed.

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

The applicant's union, AMAPCEO, filed a Request to Intervene.

Neither the applicant nor the respondent opposed the request.

The Tribunal granted the union leave to intervene, noting that a bargaining agent generally has an interest in a human rights application brought by an employee in its bargaining unit.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on record of offences, but failed to provide a narrative explaining the allegations.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) for lack of jurisdiction.

In response, the applicant claimed age discrimination but again provided no particulars.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application at this preliminary stage, noting it will only do so if it is 'plain and obvious' that it lacks jurisdiction.

The applicant was directed to file a detailed statement describing the alleged discrimination within 14 days.

The applicant filed human rights applications against the respondents.

In an earlier interim decision, the Tribunal directed the applicant to seek leave of the Superior Court to lift a bankruptcy stay or reach an agreement with the Receiver, and to advise the Tribunal of her intentions.

The applicant failed to comply with these directions within the specified timeframes and did not contact the Tribunal for over four months.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the applications as abandoned.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, citing medical issues and the unavailability of a key witness.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, finding that the medical evidence provided did not establish extraordinary circumstances and that the hearing had already been rescheduled once to accommodate the witness.

However, the Tribunal granted the applicant an extension of time to file pre-hearing materials and directed him to provide a written statement of the unavailable witness's proposed evidence.

The applicant filed an Application for Contravention of Settlement under section 45.9(3) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the Application, requiring the applicant to provide written submissions identifying how a settlement term was breached.

The applicant failed to provide the required submissions by the deadline.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability regarding accommodations for the LSAT and subsequent law school admissions.

Dalhousie University requested dismissal of the allegations against it, arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction over matters occurring in Nova Scotia.

The Tribunal agreed and dismissed the application against Dalhousie.

The Law School Admission Council (LSAC) also challenged jurisdiction, arguing its accommodation decisions were made in Pennsylvania.

The Tribunal found it had jurisdiction over LSAC because the service (the LSAT) and the accommodations were implemented in Ontario, and the effects of the decisions were felt in Ontario.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The respondent Organizational Solutions failed to file a Response by the required deadline.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the non-responding party to file a Response by April 19, 2011, along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice and deem the respondent to have accepted the allegations.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application after he failed to attend a scheduled summary hearing teleconference.

The applicant argued he had provided a Skype username by email in the middle of the night before the hearing and expected the Tribunal to call him via Skype.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the applicant's failure to call into the provided conference number or provide a valid telephone number was not excused by his late email requesting a Skype call.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment more than one year after the last incident.

The respondents requested dismissal for delay.

The applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, despite having previously filed an Employment Standards Act claim and being advised that her matter was within the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found the delay was not incurred in good faith and dismissed the application.

The applicant, a physician in a cardiac surgery residency program, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race, ethnic origin, and disability.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred pending the outcome of an ongoing academic appeal regarding the applicant's requirement to participate in further remediation.

The Tribunal found that there was significant overlap between the circumstances giving rise to the application and the academic appeal, and that deferral would avoid concurrent proceedings and potential inconsistent findings.

The Tribunal ordered the application deferred until the conclusion of the academic appeal.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend his human rights application to seek damages for wage loss in the amount of $27,300 and general damages of $15,000.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the amendment was reasonable and would not prejudice the respondents given the hearing was five weeks away and the increase in damages was relatively small.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed her application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant argued that the Tribunal erred in its procedural rulings regarding the respondent's response and in its substantive finding that her complaints about the Commission's investigation were beyond the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish that the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence or that other factors outweighed the public interest in finality.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

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

The respondent failed to file a Response by the deadline set in the Notice of Application.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision noting the failure to respond and warning of the potential consequences under Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondent was granted 10 days to file a Response along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice.

The applicant filed a request to reactivate a human rights application that had been deferred pending the conclusion of a grievance arbitration.

The applicant provided a copy of the arbitrator's decision disposing of the grievances.

As the respondents and intervenor consented to the request, the Tribunal ordered the application reactivated.

The applicant filed an Application alleging a contravention of a 1999 settlement agreement regarding pension payments.

The applicant claimed he became aware of the breach when he turned 65 in June 2009, but did not file the Application until March 2010, beyond the six-month limitation period under s. 45.9(3) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to act with due diligence and did not provide a good faith explanation for the delay.

The Application was dismissed.

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

The individual respondent failed to file a Response despite multiple notices.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision giving the individual respondent a final 10 days to file a Response and explain the delay, warning that failure to do so could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming the allegations accepted under Rule 5.5.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of an Interim Decision that dismissed portions of her human rights application as an abuse of process.

The applicant sought to reargue a factual dispute regarding the removal of special education supports.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant failed to make submissions bearing on any of the factors required for reconsideration under Rule 25 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled summary hearing by teleconference.

Despite being directed to provide a telephone number where he could be reached, the applicant instead demanded the Tribunal call a Skype number shortly before the hearing.

The Tribunal does not conduct hearings via Skype.

As the applicant had notice of the hearing and failed to attend or provide a valid telephone number, the application was dismissed as abandoned.