HRTO 2012

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code against a corporate respondent and three personal respondents.

One personal respondent failed to file a response by the deadline.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the non-responding party of the consequences of failing to participate under Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, and granted her an additional 14 days to file a response and an explanation for the delay.

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

The Tribunal previously ordered the respondent to file its Response within 35 days.

The respondent failed to file a Response or return correspondence.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent of the consequences of failing to respond under Rule 5.5 and granted the respondent 14 days to file a Response along with an explanation for the delay.

The applicant filed a human rights application more than two years after the last alleged incident of discrimination.

The Tribunal initially dismissed the application as abandoned after an administrative oversight resulted in the applicant's response to a Notice of Intent to Dismiss not being placed before the adjudicator.

The Tribunal reconsidered the dismissal on its own initiative but ultimately dismissed the application for delay.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's pursuit of other legal proceedings and lack of medical evidence supporting her claim of post-partum depression did not constitute a good faith explanation for the delay under section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code.

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

The respondent failed to file a response despite being granted two extensions of time.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision noting the failure to respond and warning of the consequences under Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The Tribunal granted the respondent a final 14 days to file a response along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice.

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

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

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

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

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment against her employer and two individual respondents.

The respondents requested to defer the application pending the resolution of concurrent grievance proceedings and to remove the individual respondents as parties.

The Tribunal granted the deferral, noting the significant overlap of facts and issues with the grievance.

The Tribunal also removed the individual respondents, finding no compelling reason to continue against them since the corporate respondent accepted liability for their actions and no prejudice would result to the applicant.

In an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex (pregnancy), the Tribunal held a case conference to address preliminary issues.

The Tribunal amended the respondent's name, directed the applicant to file a formal request for corporate ownership documents, and noted the applicant's withdrawal of a bifurcation request.

The Tribunal also ordered the respondent to produce Records of Employment for comparable employees with low sales figures, ordered the applicant to produce a birth certificate and medical records, and limited the scope of the respondent's witnesses' testimony to the respondent's maternity leave policies rather than their personal experiences.

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

The Tribunal previously deferred the application pending the conclusion of an investigation by the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD).

The Tribunal later requested an update on the OIPRD investigation, warning that failure to respond could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

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

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

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex and family status for the respondent's failure to accommodate her need to breastfeed.

The applicant had also filed a grievance raising the same issues.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer, to which the applicant did not respond.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process, as the grievance arbitrator has the authority to decide human rights claims.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking details of the respondents' witness evidence and disclosed a complete audio recording shortly before the scheduled hearing.

The respondents requested an adjournment, on consent, citing insufficient time to prepare and prejudice from the late disclosure.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, finding that the respondents failed to establish exceptional circumstances to justify adjourning the hearing at the last minute.

The applicant, a student, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in services based on disability and reprisal by the respondent college.

The applicant requested an interim remedy seeking immediate compensation for tuition, housing, and allowance, as well as reinstatement of his education.

The Tribunal denied the interim remedy request, finding that the balance of harm or convenience did not favour granting it and that it was not just or appropriate in the circumstances.

The Tribunal granted a request for a summary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The respondent requested that the human rights application alleging failure to accommodate a disability be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) had appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the WSIB decision only determined that the applicant's injury was not work-related and did not address whether the respondent infringed the applicant's rights by refusing to return him to work and accommodate his disability.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, challenging his suspension and dismissal.

The applicant's union concurrently filed a grievance regarding the same dismissal, which was referred to arbitration.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer, to which only the respondent replied, supporting deferral.

Finding that the grievance and the application involved the same facts and human rights issues, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process.

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

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to comply with pre-hearing obligations, including providing witness lists and documents.

The applicant failed to comply with the direction or request an adjournment by the specified deadline.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned and cancelled the scheduled hearing dates.

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

The respondents requested particulars, and the Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide them.

The applicant failed to comply with the order and did not respond to the respondents' subsequent request to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had abandoned the application and dismissed it.

The applicant, a 53-year-old who previously worked for the respondent through a third-party contractor, alleged age discrimination after failing to obtain an interview for a custodial maintenance position.

The respondent received over 200 applications and hired 32 individuals, including some younger and at least one older than the applicant.

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

Finding no evidence beyond speculation to link the failure to hire to the applicant's age, and noting that the traditional prima facie case test is not rigidly applied at the summary hearing stage, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The applicant, a seasonal truck driver, alleged discrimination based on perceived disability after the respondent failed to rehire him following a hernia diagnosis.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application had already been dealt with by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB).

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the WSIB only determined whether the hernia was work-related for benefits purposes and did not consider the human rights allegations regarding the failure to rehire.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the applicant's human rights application pending the outcome of a recently filed grievance.

The Tribunal reviewed the subject matter of both proceedings and found no overlap in the facts.

The grievance concerned a denial of a temporary assignment based on marital status, whereas the application alleged discrimination based on sex, marital, and family status related to a different temporary position and maternity leaves.

The request for deferral was denied, and directions were given for mediation or a preliminary hearing.

The respondents requested the removal of two personal respondents (the applicant's supervisor and the Executive Director) from a human rights application alleging disability discrimination.

The corporate respondent confirmed it accepted that the personal respondents were acting in the course of their employment, accepted liability for any Code violations, and had the ability to remedy any violations.

Applying the factors from Persaud, the Tribunal found no compelling juridical reason to keep the personal respondents as parties and granted the request to remove them.

The respondent in a human rights application filed a Request for an Order during Proceedings to amend its Response.

The applicant did not file a response to the request.

The Tribunal found it fair and just to allow the amendment, as it provided more detail on the respondent's position, and granted the applicant 14 days to file a Reply to the amended Response.