HRTO 2011

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

Prior to the hearing, the respondents requested an adjournment and clarification regarding the applicant's request for document production.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request but varied the hearing procedure to accommodate the applicant's disabilities and lack of representation.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to immediately produce the requested memo books and directed that the scheduled hearing date would proceed only to hear the applicant's evidence, with the respondents permitted to postpone cross-examination if necessary.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

The respondent subsequently obtained protection under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA), which stayed proceedings and established a claims procedure order.

The applicant failed to file a claim regarding the human rights application before the claims bar date.

The respondent argued the claim was compromised and barred.

After the applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's notice regarding the respondent's position, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking the full names and last known coordinates of two potential witnesses employed by the respondent.

The respondent did not reply to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request and ordered the respondent to disclose the information within two days.

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

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed for delay.

The applicant argued she was ignorant of her rights and had pursued other avenues, such as an Employment Standards Act complaint.

The Tribunal found that ignorance of the law and waiting for another legal proceeding to conclude do not constitute a good faith reason for delay.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the grounds of sex and record of offences following his termination.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) as the application appeared to fall outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to provide written submissions in response.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations related to record of offences and harassment, finding no connection to a Code ground.

However, the Tribunal allowed the application to proceed solely on the allegation of sex discrimination, as the applicant claimed female employees were not disciplined for missing work.

The complainant requested to withdraw his human rights complaint against the Ministry of Community and Social Services and the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario granted leave and the complaint was withdrawn.

The complainant sought to withdraw his human rights complaint against the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario granted leave and the complaint was withdrawn.

The complainant sought to withdraw his human rights complaint against the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario granted leave and the complaint was withdrawn.

The applicant filed a request for reconsideration of an interim decision that granted the respondents an adjournment due to a medical emergency.

The applicant alleged a denial of procedural fairness and claimed the respondents misled the Tribunal.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, noting that decisions to adjourn and applications of disclosure rules are discretionary, interim decisions, and therefore not final decisions subject to reconsideration under section 45.7 of the Human Rights Code and Rule 26.5.

The applicant sought to withdraw his 2009 human rights application against the Ministry and proceed with his amended 2010 application against both the Ministry and his union.

The respondents consented to the amendment of the 2010 application without prejudice to their positions on the merits.

The Tribunal granted leave to withdraw the 2009 application, allowed the amendment of the 2010 application, and set a schedule for the respondents to file amended responses addressing their preliminary objections.

The respondents brought a Request for Order on consent to remove the personal respondents André Lalonde, Gilles Patry, and Robert Major from the proceeding.

The Tribunal granted the request and amended the title of proceedings accordingly.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application failed to identify specific acts or grounds of discrimination.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice.

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 because the application failed to identify specific acts of discrimination or a ground under the Code.

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

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

The respondent requested to defer the human rights application pending the outcome of an ongoing workplace grievance-arbitration process.

The applicant opposed the deferral, citing concerns over a withdrawn grievance.

The Tribunal found that the remaining grievances were virtually identical to the subject matter of the application and deferred the application to avoid adjudicative duplication and inconsistent decisions.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability, family status, marital status, race, and religion, stemming from the enforcement of a child support order by the Family Responsibility Office.

He requested an interim remedy to halt the enforcement, claiming it would leave him homeless and without food.

The Tribunal denied the interim remedy, finding the applicant failed to provide the required declarations or demonstrate that the balance of harm favoured granting the relief.

The Tribunal also issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting the application appeared to fall outside its jurisdiction as it challenged a court order and involved relationships not covered by the Code.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment contrary to the Human Rights Code.

A hearing was scheduled, but the applicant failed to attend.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed as abandoned.

Satisfied that the applicant had notice of the hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

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

The applicant subsequently filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend the application to add an allegation of reprisal and a request for wage loss compensation.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the reprisal allegation flowed from the original facts, the wage loss claim had a logical connection to the original allegations, and the respondents would not be prejudiced by the amendment.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to amend his human rights application to add the ground of disability, alleging the respondent failed to accommodate his temporary reduction in mobility following knee replacement surgery.

The respondent opposed the request on the basis that the applicant did not request modified work before retiring, but did not assert prejudice.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, noting the small number of additional facts and the apparent lack of prejudice to the respondent.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in the provision of public transit services based on race and colour.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intention to Dismiss because the application failed to identify specific acts of discrimination linked to Code grounds.

In his submissions, the applicant alleged discrimination based on his personal appearance, such as body weight, shaved head, and beard, but did not connect these to any protected ground.

The Tribunal dismissed the application at the preliminary stage, finding it plain and obvious that the subject matter fell outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application that involved the same facts and issues as two ongoing union grievances.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer.

The respondent supported deferral, while the applicant opposed it due to uncertainty over union representation.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process, noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority to enforce human rights obligations.