HRTO 2011

In an interim decision during a human rights hearing, the Tribunal ruled on the admissibility of documentary and witness evidence proposed by the applicant.

The Tribunal admitted four reports regarding diversity and demographic statistics in the GTA and York Region as contextual evidence, relieving against the applicant's failure to disclose them in advance under Rule 3.6.

However, the Tribunal declined to hear from two proposed witnesses, finding their anticipated evidence to be either withdrawn, irrelevant to the specific hiring competitions at issue, or lacking a factual foundation.

The applicant filed an application alleging a breach of settlement by the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

Following a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, the applicant clarified he was alleging the Commission failed to protect his human rights, rather than a breach of settlement.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it had no jurisdiction to review how the Commission carried out its mandate under the previous version of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination regarding the termination of his employment, which occurred in 2004 or earlier.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction on two grounds.

First, the subject-matter was the same as a previous complaint filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission, barring the application under section 53(8) of the Human Rights Code.

Second, the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period under section 34, and the applicant failed to establish that the delay was incurred in good faith.

The respondent in a human rights application filed a Request for Order seeking production of the applicant's income tax returns and documents related to her search for other employment.

The applicant did not file a response.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to produce the requested documents, finding them arguably relevant to her claim for lost wages and mitigation of damages, unless she chooses to restrict the period for which she is seeking compensation.

The respondents requested an order compelling the self-represented applicant, who resides in Iran, to attend the hearing in person rather than by electronic means.

The respondents argued that in-person cross-examination was necessary for credibility assessments.

The applicant argued that his case relied primarily on documentary evidence and that travel costs and visa limitations posed significant hardship.

The Tribunal dismissed the respondents' request, permitting the applicant to present his case-in-chief in writing and appear by teleconference for the initial stage of the hearing, finding no significant prejudice to the respondents at this stage.

The applicant filed human rights applications in 2009 and 2010 alleging discrimination and a poisoned work environment, which were deferred pending the conclusion of related grievances before the Grievance Settlement Board.

Following a GSB decision awarding damages, the applicant requested to reactivate the 2010 application and amend it to include a new allegation.

The Tribunal granted the request to reactivate as it was filed within the 60-day time limit under Rule 14.4, and directed the respondents to file submissions on the request to amend.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming he was dismissed for reporting a workplace injury.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer pending the resolution of a related WSIB claim.

The respondent agreed to the deferral, but the applicant argued the WSIB claim did not address his termination or right to reinstatement.

The Tribunal declined to defer the application, finding that the allegations of discriminatory dismissal were not the subject of the WSIB proceeding, and ordered the respondent to file a Response.

The applicant alleged discrimination in housing based on colour, claiming the respondent, a Fire Marshall inspector, provided false testimony at a court proceeding that led to the applicant's conviction under the Fire Protection and Prevention Act.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting that the conduct of persons participating in court proceedings generally does not constitute a 'service' under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to file further submissions on whether the respondent's role as a witness can be considered a service.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that the respondents discriminated against her on the basis of disability in their administration of her social assistance benefits, which she claimed led to her eviction.

The respondents brought a request for an order during proceedings seeking early dismissal of the application.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant's delay in filing was incurred in good faith due to her mental health issues, the application must be dismissed because the applicant failed to set out facts that could give rise to a finding of discrimination.

The Tribunal held that the applicant was essentially disputing the results of statutory decision-makers, which does not constitute a discriminatory service under the Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application against a corporate and a personal respondent.

The corporate respondent went bankrupt, leaving no funds for unsecured creditors, and the applicant failed to provide current contact information for the personal respondent despite a Tribunal direction.

After the applicant failed to respond to a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination and reprisal against her former employer and a personal respondent.

The corporate respondent filed a response indicating the personal respondent was no longer employed there and it did not represent her.

As the personal respondent had not received the application, the Tribunal ordered the corporate respondent to provide the personal respondent's last known address so the Tribunal could deliver the application.

The applicant failed to provide correct contact information for a personal respondent, and neither party complied with a previous Tribunal order to provide his last known address.

In accordance with the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal dismissed the application against the personal respondent and amended the style of cause.

The matter was directed to mediation for the remaining parties.

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

After failing to attend a scheduled mediation and failing to respond to a Registrar's direction regarding her intentions, the applicant was deemed to have abandoned the application.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment based on 'superior bullying'.

After verbally indicating a desire to withdraw the application, the applicant failed to provide written confirmation or respond to the Tribunal's subsequent correspondence directing him to advise of his intentions.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

After her counsel withdrew, the applicant failed to comply with disclosure obligations and lost contact with the Tribunal.

The applicant subsequently failed to appear at the scheduled hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned, emphasizing that applicants have a responsibility to participate in proceedings and attend scheduled hearings.

The applicant filed a human rights application but subsequently failed to maintain current contact information with the Tribunal.

After correspondence sent by mail and email was returned or went unanswered, the Tribunal warned the applicant that failure to respond would result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant did not respond, and the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant requested the Tribunal reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the resolution of his WSIB claims.

The respondent opposed reactivation, arguing the WSIB was still dealing with issues related to the applicant's benefits.

The Tribunal found that while the WSIB was still adjudicating benefit entitlements, it was not considering whether the respondent accommodated the applicant's disability or whether his termination was discriminatory.

Accordingly, the Tribunal granted the request to reactivate and resume processing the application.

The respondent sought the early dismissal of a human rights application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application had been appropriately dealt with in a prior criminal proceeding.

The applicant had previously laid a private information against the respondent for criminal harassment, but the Crown ultimately withdrew the charges.

The Tribunal denied the request for early dismissal, finding that the criminal process did not afford the applicant a full and fair opportunity to have her human rights claim considered by an adjudicator with jurisdiction to apply the Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination based on perceived disability.

The respondent requested early dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the issues were already addressed in mediated grievance settlements, some allegations were out of time, and the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case.

The applicant's union requested intervenor status, which the Tribunal granted.

The Tribunal deferred the respondent's request to dismiss to a scheduled half-day in-person hearing, outlining the specific issues the parties must address.

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

The applicant subsequently passed away.

The Tribunal contacted the applicant's executor requesting written submissions and confirmation of status, but received no response.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.