HRTO 2011

The respondent requested that the human rights application be deferred pending the outcome of the applicant's WSIB claim.

The applicant objected, stating they are two different issues.

The Tribunal found that there is an overlap between the issues raised in the two proceedings, particularly regarding the nature of the applicant's claimed disability and potential compensation for lost income.

To avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions, the Tribunal deferred the application until the WSIB Appeals Branch deals with the applicant's objections.

The applicant alleged age discrimination and reprisal after not being short-listed for a Co-Director position at York University.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal ruled on the relevance of six witnesses proposed by the applicant to challenge the respondent's non-discriminatory explanations.

The Tribunal allowed three witnesses whose evidence could speak to the credibility of the hiring committee's assessments regarding the applicant's interactions with diplomats and research reputation.

The Tribunal excluded three witnesses whose proposed evidence related to general character, teaching, or leadership skills not directly tied to the specific reasons given by the hiring committee for its decision.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission intervened as of right with the applicant's consent.

The Human Rights Legal Support Centre, the Office of the Employer Advisor, and the Office of the Worker Advisor sought leave to intervene.

The requests were unopposed and deemed appropriate.

The Tribunal granted leave to intervene to all three organizations.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) on the basis that the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction, directing the applicant to respond by a specified date.

The applicant failed to respond to the NOID.

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

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

The respondent failed to file a response by the required deadline.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent that failure to file a response by a specified final deadline could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming the respondent to have accepted the allegations.

The applicant filed a human rights application nearly four years after the alleged incident of discrimination by a police officer during a motor vehicle accident investigation.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued she was still gathering evidence, but the Tribunal found this did not constitute a good faith reason for delay.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

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

After failing to attend a scheduled mediation on time, the Tribunal directed the applicant to advise of her intentions regarding the application.

The applicant failed to respond to multiple communications from the Tribunal.

Consequently, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

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

The respondent requested further particulars, and the Tribunal directed the applicant to file an amended Application, warning that failure to do so would result in the Application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond or file the amended Application within the specified time.

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

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

The Tribunal scheduled a teleconference to address the respondents' requests to dismiss the application for delay and failure to state a prima facie case.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled teleconference.

The Tribunal dismissed the application on the basis that it was deemed abandoned and, additionally, because it was filed outside the one-year statutory time limit under section 34 of the Human Rights Code without establishing good faith for the delay.

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

The Tribunal previously deferred the application pending the conclusion of Employment Standards Act (ESA) proceedings.

Following the conclusion of the ESA proceedings, the respondent requested the application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Code, arguing the ESA proceedings appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The applicant requested reactivation.

The Tribunal reactivated the application and scheduled a conference call hearing to hear oral submissions on the respondent's request to dismiss, as required by s. 43(2) of the Code.

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

The applicant's union filed a Request to Intervene in the application, specifically regarding the quality of representation services it provided to the applicant.

Neither the applicant nor the respondent opposed the request.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene, noting that a bargaining agent generally has an interest in a human rights application brought by a represented employee.

The respondent sought early dismissal of portions of a human rights application alleging the removal of special education services in 2003 (Issue B).

The Tribunal previously found that the Ontario Human Rights Commission had dismissed an earlier complaint regarding a 2001 failure to accommodate (Issue A) because the applicant failed to cooperate by providing updated medical assessments.

The Tribunal held it would be an abuse of process to proceed with Issue B unless the applicant could show she provided new assessment information to the respondent.

Finding that the applicant's 2004 medical letter merely restated her refusal to undergo a new assessment, the Tribunal concluded the applicant was attempting to relitigate issues already determined by the Commission.

The portions of the application relating to Issue B were dismissed as an abuse of process.

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

After consenting to mediation, the applicant failed to attend the scheduled mediation session and did not contact the Tribunal to seek an adjournment.

The Tribunal sent correspondence directing the applicant to advise of her intentions, warning that failure to respond would result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant did not respond.

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

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

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

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondent to file a Response within 10 days, 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 filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, which was deferred pending the conclusion of ongoing grievance proceedings.

The Tribunal subsequently requested a status update from the applicant, warning that failure to respond within 30 days could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

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

As a result, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant sought a one-month extension to file her Reply and requested that all further correspondence and proceedings be conducted exclusively in English.

The Tribunal granted a two-week extension for the Reply.

The Tribunal denied the request for English-only proceedings, noting its practice in bilingual applications is to communicate in both languages and accept written submissions in the language they are received.

The Tribunal confirmed it will provide interpretation services during mediation and hearings, but will not translate the respondent's French communications into English, respecting the respondent's rights under the French Language Services Act.

The applicant filed a human rights application against her employer and two individuals.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the outcome of an ongoing workplace grievance-arbitration process dealing with the same issues.

Neither party filed submissions in response.

The Tribunal deferred the application, noting that grievance arbitrators have the power and responsibility to enforce human rights obligations, and deferral avoids adjudicative duplication.

The respondent requested that the applicant's human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability be deferred pending the outcome of her concurrent Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) claim.

The applicant alleged she developed asthma and dermatitis from workplace mould exposure.

The Tribunal found that the WSIB was the appropriate specialized body to determine the threshold issue of whether the applicant had a physical disability resulting from workplace exposure.

The application was deferred pending the completion of the WSIB adjudication.

The respondents requested the early dismissal of two human rights applications alleging sex discrimination, arguing that a previous employment reprisal application had appropriately dealt with their substance under section 45.1 of the Code.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding no evidence that the employment case resolved the substance of the current applications regarding goods and services.

The Tribunal also directed the parties to provide submissions on consolidating the two applications and on the applicants' allegation that the respondents' law firm was in a conflict of interest.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

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

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent of the consequences of failing to participate under Rule 5.5 of the Rules of Procedure, and granted the respondent a final extension to March 25, 2011, to file a Response and explain the delay.