HRTO 2012

The respondents filed a Request for Order during Proceeding seeking to remove a personal respondent, the Director of People Development, from the human rights application.

The applicant did not respond to the request.

Applying the factors from Persaud, the Tribunal found that the corporate respondent acknowledged vicarious liability for the personal respondent's actions and had the ability to remedy any potential Code violation.

Finding no compelling reason to continue the proceeding against the individual, the Tribunal ordered her removed as a respondent.

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

The respondent failed to file a Response by the deadline set out in the Notice of Application.

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 10 days to file a completed Response along with an explanation for the delay.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the respondent animal welfare organization.

The Tribunal directed a preliminary hearing to address the issue of delay, as the application appeared to be filed outside the one-year limitation period.

After the applicant repeatedly sought adjournments and failed to provide requested medical documentation or written submissions explaining the delay, the Tribunal proceeded in writing.

The Tribunal found that the last incident of alleged discrimination occurred more than a year before the application was filed, and the applicant failed to provide a good faith explanation for the delay.

The application was dismissed.

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

The respondents filed a request to dismiss the application on the basis that the corporate respondent is an interprovincial and international trucking business governed by the Canada Labour Code.

The Tribunal found that the employer is a federally regulated business and therefore falls outside provincial jurisdiction.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination after being prohibited from visiting her father at his retirement home.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the father's companion as it was a family dispute outside its jurisdiction.

The application against the retirement home was also dismissed because the home was merely following the father's instructions and did not discriminate on a prohibited ground.

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

The Tribunal directed that a summary hearing be held to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant refused to provide available dates for the summary hearing until the Tribunal ordered the respondent to produce certain documents.

The Tribunal explained that document production would occur after the summary hearing if necessary, and directed the applicant to provide dates or face abandonment.

The applicant subsequently informed the Tribunal he would no longer correspond with it.

The application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to add his supervisor as a personal respondent to his human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the corporate respondent was already a party and there was no compelling juridical reason to add the supervisor personally.

The Tribunal emphasized that the unnecessary naming of personal respondents is discouraged where a corporate respondent is deemed liable for the actions of its employees under section 45(1) of the Code and there is no issue regarding its ability to respond to or remedy an alleged infringement.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application as untimely.

He argued there were new facts and that the decision conflicted with established case law.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant's proposed new witnesses could have been identified earlier and did not affect the timeliness analysis.

The Tribunal also noted that a reconsideration is not an opportunity to re-argue the case or seek a waiver of statutory time limits without justification.

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

Following the corporate respondent's bankruptcy, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to advise whether she intended to seek to lift the stay of proceedings or proceed against the personal respondent.

The applicant failed to respond within the directed timeframe.

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

The applicant alleged discrimination and reprisal after being asked by the respondent's staff to move from a park bench near its drop-in centre, pursuant to a 'good neighbour' policy.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success as the applicant failed to link the respondent's actions to a prohibited ground of discrimination or identify a reprisal for asserting Code rights.

The applicant filed a human rights application which was deferred pending the conclusion of ongoing grievance arbitration proceedings.

The Tribunal subsequently contacted the applicant multiple times requesting an update on the grievance proceedings and warning that failure to respond could result in abandonment.

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

Consequently, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

The respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceeding seeking early production of employment records from the applicant's new employer.

The Tribunal noted that under Rule 16, disclosure is triggered by the issuance of a Notice of Hearing, which had not yet occurred.

As the respondent failed to identify any exceptional circumstances to justify early production, the request was denied as premature.

The corporate respondent brought a Request for an Order during a Proceeding to remove two individual respondents from the human rights application and to strike parts of the application as untimely.

The Tribunal granted the request to remove the individual respondents, applying the Persaud factors, as the corporate respondent accepted vicarious liability for their actions and their presence as parties was not necessary for a fair resolution.

The issue of timeliness was deferred to the commencement of the hearing.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a preliminary hearing to allow more time to retain representation from the Human Rights Legal Support Centre.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant's failure to retain counsel in a timely manner did not constitute extraordinary circumstances warranting an adjournment.

The Tribunal also directed the parties to address whether a release signed by the applicant was legally binding, given potential issues regarding consideration and coercion.

The applicant, a university professor, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal based on race, ancestry, and sex.

The respondents argued that several of the allegations had been previously resolved through grievance settlements and that allowing them to proceed would constitute an abuse of process.

The Tribunal found that the allegations regarding the denial of promotion, unfair teaching load, handling of student complaints, and deduction of overload pay were the subject of binding settlements or resolutions.

Consequently, the Tribunal struck those allegations from the application as an abuse of process, allowing only the unresolved allegations concerning the university President's conduct and the Board of Regents eligibility criteria to proceed.

The respondents in a human rights application alleging disability discrimination filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking particulars prior to a scheduled mediation.

The respondents indicated they might withdraw from mediation if particulars were not provided.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that its rules provide for production if mediation fails and that requests for particulars prior to mediation are discouraged.

The Tribunal directed the respondents to confirm whether they intended to participate in the voluntary mediation.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of reprisal under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requesting submissions on jurisdiction, as the applicant's narrative did not identify how the respondent subjected her to reprisal for claiming or enforcing a right under the Code.

The Tribunal found no nexus between the allegations of unfairness and a Code ground.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in the denial of long-term disability benefits.

The Tribunal scheduled a summary hearing by teleconference to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing without explanation.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sexual harassment by a chef and reprisal by the restaurant owner.

The applicant brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings to add the chef as a personal respondent and to compel the corporate respondent to provide his last known address.

The Tribunal applied the Smyth test and found it appropriate to add the chef as a respondent, noting the corporate respondent disputed liability.

The Tribunal also ordered the corporate respondent to provide the chef's last known address to facilitate delivery of the Application.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his applications alleging discrimination and reprisal by his housing provider.

The applicant argued there was new evidence and that the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence regarding the accommodation of his disability.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant failed to point to any new facts or evidence that were not available before the summary hearing, and that his arguments were essentially a repetition of those already advanced and considered.