HRTO 2011

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, ethnic origin, and reprisal.

The respondent requested early dismissal on the basis that the applicant had previously signed a full and final release during grievance arbitration proceedings.

A hearing was scheduled, but the applicant failed to appear or provide any explanation for his absence.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned, emphasizing that applicants have a responsibility to attend hearings and provide evidence, and noting the significant resources expended by both the respondent and the Tribunal.

The respondent filed a Request for Order seeking production of any statements given by the applicant to the Human Rights Officer during the investigation of the applicant's complaint by the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

The applicant opposed the request, arguing that the statements were part of a conciliation process and that he did not possess a written statement.

The Tribunal ordered both parties to disclose any witness statements or records of interviews with the Commission in their possession within 10 days.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on race, colour, place of origin, family status, and age after not being hired for a full-time permanent position.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) to determine if it had jurisdiction.

The Tribunal dismissed the claims based on age and family status as it was plain and obvious they fell outside its jurisdiction.

However, the Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the claims based on race, colour, and place of origin fell outside its jurisdiction, and directed the applicant to file an amended application with more detailed facts.

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

The respondents sought to dismiss the application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application had been appropriately dealt with in Workplace Safety and Insurance Board proceedings.

The applicant had appealed the WSIB decision to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT).

The Tribunal decided to defer the human rights application pending the completion of the WSIAT proceedings, as there were significant overlapping issues, such as whether the applicant voluntarily severed his employment or was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint against his landlord, Ecuhome Corporation, alleging discrimination.

He subsequently filed applications with the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB).

At the LTB hearing, the applicant undertook to withdraw his human rights complaint in order for the LTB to assume jurisdiction over his applications and resolve a preliminary objection regarding duplicative proceedings.

The applicant later resiled from this undertaking without notifying the LTB and sought to proceed with his human rights application before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as an abuse of process, finding that the applicant had an obligation to inform the LTB that he was resiling from his undertaking.

The applicants requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing date because a witness and moral support person would be unavailable.

The respondents consented to the request.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, noting that the matter had already been adjourned twice and the events at issue dated back over five years.

The Tribunal emphasized its commitment to fair and timely access to justice and found that the absence of the witness and support person did not constitute exceptional circumstances justifying a further delay.

The corporate and individual respondents brought a request for an order during proceedings to remove the individual respondent, a human resources director, from a human rights application alleging discrimination based on family and marital status.

The corporate respondent accepted vicarious liability for the individual respondent's actions, which were alleged to have occurred in the normal course of his employment.

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal found no compelling reason to continue the proceeding against the individual respondent and ordered him removed as a party.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) and one of its Vice-chairs, alleging discrimination and reprisal in the provision of services during a previous hearing.

The HRTO determined that the actions complained of were adjudicative in nature and therefore protected by the doctrine of judicial immunity.

The Tribunal also found the application to be an abuse of process, as it was an attempt to relitigate matters already decided.

The HRTO concluded it could dismiss the application without giving rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint against the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario and one of its Vice-Chairs, alleging discrimination based on race and ethnic origin after his previous complaints were dismissed.

The applicant argued that the Tribunal could not adjudicate the new complaint due to a reasonable apprehension of bias and sought the appointment of a disinterested person under the Public Officers Act.

The Tribunal held that it has the authority to determine whether an application is properly before it, even when named as a respondent, without giving rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that it was barred by the doctrine of adjudicative immunity and constituted an abuse of process as an attempt to relitigate the earlier decisions.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging disability discrimination.

During the hearing, the applicant testified that his supervisor made derogatory comments about his injury, an allegation not included in the original complaint or the statement of additional facts.

The Tribunal ruled that this new allegation fell outside the scope of the complaint and could not be pursued, as it would be unfair to the respondents.

However, the Tribunal admitted a reply document previously filed by the applicant for the limited purpose of assessing credibility, responding to the respondents' implication that the allegation was recently fabricated.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the ground of disability and reprisal following a workplace assault.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed four issues: a request to reconsider the removal of individual respondents, an intervention request by the Association, a request to strike untimely allegations, and a request to dismiss for no prima facie case.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, granted the intervention, clarified that older allegations were background only, and deferred ruling on the prima facie case issue, directing the City to file a Response.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and failure to accommodate his disability, which he claimed led to his constructive dismissal when he retired.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed as it was filed more than one year after the last alleged incident of discrimination.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's retirement date was not an 'incident' of discrimination and that the last alleged discriminatory act occurred outside the one-year limitation period.

The Tribunal also found that the applicant failed to provide medical evidence to establish that the delay was incurred in good faith.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant, a former fire captain, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and failure to accommodate his disability, which he claimed led to his forced retirement.

The application was filed more than one year after the last alleged incident.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed for delay.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's explanations for the delay, including his medical condition, alleged misinformation from the Commission, and ignorance of changes to the human rights system, did not establish that the delay was incurred in good faith.

Consequently, the application was dismissed as being outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant, a former fire captain, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and failure to accommodate his disability, which he claimed led to his forced retirement.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed for delay, as it was filed more than one year after the last alleged incident.

The applicant argued the delay was in good faith due to his depression and his lack of knowledge about the new human rights system.

The Tribunal found that medical evidence is required to establish that a disability prevented an applicant from pursuing their rights, which was not provided.

Furthermore, the discoverability principle does not apply to ignorance of legal rights.

The Tribunal concluded the application was filed out of time without good faith for the delay, and dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed two human rights applications against his former employer and his union, alleging discrimination on the basis of sex, sexual solicitation, and reprisal regarding his termination in 2003.

The respondents requested that the applications be dismissed for delay, as they were filed in April 2007, more than three years after the last alleged incident.

The applicant argued that the delay was justified by ongoing collusion between the employer and the union during subsequent grievance and duty of fair representation proceedings.

The Tribunal found no factual basis for the collusion argument and concluded that the applicant failed to provide a good faith explanation for the inordinate delay.

The applications were dismissed as untimely under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondent advised the Tribunal that it had filed a Notice of Intention to Make a Proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The Tribunal found that the application was a proceeding against the respondent that must be stayed under section 69(1) of the Act.

The scheduled summary hearing was adjourned, and the respondent was directed to update the Tribunal on the status of the bankruptcy proposal.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of age, colour, disability, ethnic origin, place of origin, and race in relation to an insurance claim for water damage to his property.

The respondent insurance company maintained it handled the claim in accordance with the policy.

Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success as the applicant provided no evidence beyond his own certitude to connect the respondent's conduct to any prohibited grounds.

The respondent requested an adjournment or deferral of the human rights application pending the conclusion of the applicant's Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) proceedings.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that deferral would not be fair, just, or expeditious given the advanced stage of the Tribunal proceeding, the early stage of the WSIB claim, and the distinct issues involved.

The Tribunal directed that the hearing proceed on liability, with the possibility of deferring the remedies phase if a Code violation is found.

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

The application was previously deferred pending the conclusion of a related grievance arbitration.

The Tribunal subsequently directed the applicant to advise of his intentions regarding the application, warning that failure to respond within 30 days 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 on the basis of disability and reprisal.

The applicant's union requested to intervene, which the applicant opposed.

The respondent school board requested to defer the application pending the outcome of a concurrent grievance arbitration process dealing with the same facts.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene, finding it had a requisite interest in the proceeding.

The Tribunal also granted the respondent's request to defer the application, noting that the grievance arbitrator had jurisdiction to deal with both the human rights allegations and broader labour relations matters.