HRTO 2011

The respondents brought a request to dismiss the human rights application under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant and claimants had amended their statement of claim in a related civil class action to seek damages for human rights infringements under section 46.1 of the Code based on the same factual events.

The Tribunal held that section 34(11) acts as an absolute jurisdictional bar to the application proceeding, regardless of whether the civil class action is ultimately certified.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant delivered a summons to her former lawyer to compel him to attend the hearing.

The lawyer requested that the summons be quashed on the basis of improper service, lack of relevant evidence, and solicitor-client privilege.

The applicant did not respond to the request or indicate a waiver of privilege.

The Tribunal quashed the summons.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of family status after she was not hired for an internship.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The applicant alleged that during a phone call, a respondent employee made assumptions about her based on her family's poverty.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's allegations related to her financial status, not her status in a parent-child relationship.

As poverty is not a prohibited ground of discrimination in employment under the Code, the application had no reasonable prospect of success and was dismissed.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application for abandonment after he failed to attend a scheduled mediation.

The adjudicator found that the applicant had in fact communicated with the Tribunal regarding his absence, but his email was inadvertently omitted from the file.

Additionally, the applicant did not receive a subsequent letter from the Tribunal.

Given these circumstances, the adjudicator reconsidered the previous decision, set aside the dismissal, and directed that the application continue to be processed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, more than one year after her employment was terminated.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed for delay.

The applicant argued that she only discovered the discriminatory nature of her termination upon receiving her Record of Employment months later.

The Tribunal rejected the discoverability argument, finding that the applicant's concurrent grievance application demonstrated she was aware of the alleged discrimination within the limitation period.

The application was dismissed as out of time under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

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

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because the applicant had three ongoing union grievances arising from the same facts.

The Tribunal found that deferral was appropriate to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent findings, despite the applicant's concerns about the delay in the arbitration process.

The application was deferred pending the conclusion of the grievances.

The applicant requested to add a pharmacy and two individuals as respondents to his human rights application, alleging he was banned from the pharmacy because he was a difficult client due to prescription errors by the existing respondent.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant failed to make any allegations that would support a finding that the proposed respondents violated the Human Rights Code, as the allegations did not relate to any enumerated grounds.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in contracts and employment.

A summary hearing by teleconference was scheduled to address whether the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to attend the teleconference, despite being contacted directly by Tribunal staff with the correct dial-in information.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned due to the applicant's non-attendance.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the grounds of disability, sex, and sexual orientation.

The respondents argued the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the last incident of alleged discrimination occurred more than a year before the application was filed, and rejected the applicant's argument that her resignation constituted a further incident.

As the applicant provided no satisfactory explanation for the delay, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

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

The respondent requested the application be dismissed, arguing he was an agent of the applicant's employer (Just Energy) and thus protected by a full and final release the applicant had signed with Just Energy.

The respondent also argued there was no employment relationship between him and the applicant.

The Tribunal dismissed the respondent's request, finding that the release was not intended to unconditionally extend its benefits to the respondent as a third party.

The Tribunal also found a sufficient nexus between the parties to constitute a relationship with respect to employment under the Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment regarding retirement benefits.

The respondents argued the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant claimed he only discovered the discriminatory treatment months after his retirement was finalized.

The Tribunal found that the discovery of new evidence did not establish good faith for the delay, and that the continuing effects of the alleged discrimination did not constitute a continuing contravention.

The application was dismissed as out of time.

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

Prior to a scheduled mediation, the applicant's representative informed the Tribunal that he had lost contact with the applicant and withdrew.

The Tribunal requested confirmation of whether the applicant wished to proceed, but correspondence sent to the applicant was returned as moved/unknown.

Pursuant to Rule 5.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a request for reconsideration of a decision dismissing her application over a year after the decision was issued.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding no reason to exercise its discretion to permit the late filing and noting the applicant provided no basis for reconsideration.

The applicant's request to have the decision removed from the public record or anonymized was also denied.

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

The Tribunal scheduled a mediation session, but the Notice of Mediation sent to the applicant was returned by Canada Post indicating she had moved.

The Tribunal was unable to contact the applicant by phone and sent correspondence warning that the application would be deemed abandoned if she did not respond within 10 days.

The applicant failed to respond.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because one of its key witnesses was on medical leave and unable to work.

The applicant opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding that the hearing could begin without the witness and that further direction regarding the witness's evidence could be provided at the hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on sexual solicitation or advances.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application lacked information regarding the alleged unwelcome sexual solicitation.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice by the specified deadline.

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

The applicant, a Research Scientist at Laurentian University, alleged that the University discriminated against her on the basis of race, colour, place of origin, ethnic origin, and sex, and engaged in reprisal, when it closed the Central Analytical Facility (CAF) liquid phase and did not renew her contract.

The Tribunal found that the decision to close the facility was based on legitimate financial and program concerns, including the need for significant investment to upgrade equipment and an accreditation review, rather than discriminatory reasons.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application for delay and failure to establish a prima facie case.

The Tribunal waived the 30-day time limit for the request because the applicant's former counsel failed to forward the original decision.

On the merits, the Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 25.5.

The applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for his delay in filing the complaint, and the new evidence he sought to introduce could not reasonably have been unavailable earlier and was not potentially determinative.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

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

The applicant failed to comply with Tribunal directions regarding disclosure and witness lists, and failed to appear at the scheduled hearing.

The respondents attended with six witnesses ready to proceed.

The Tribunal dismissed the application due to the applicant's failure to attend and provide evidence in support of his allegations.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) discriminated against her on the basis of age when it denied her claim for benefits.

The WSIB Appeals Resolution Officer had concluded that the applicant's shoulder condition was likely related to age-related tendon degeneration rather than a workplace injury.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss and directed submissions on whether it had the power to deal with the claim.

Applying section 2.1(1) of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997, which exempts age-based distinctions made under the Act from the Human Rights Code, the Tribunal found it could not conclude that the WSIB's decision was discriminatory under the Code.

The application was dismissed.