HRTO 2012

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction seeking submissions on whether the application should be deferred pending the completion of concurrent criminal proceedings against the respondent.

The applicant did not oppose deferral but requested terms to ensure the matter was not deferred indefinitely.

The Tribunal ordered the application deferred, requiring the respondent to provide regular updates on the status of the criminal proceedings.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the outcome of an ongoing workplace grievance-arbitration process.

The applicant's union supported the deferral, noting that the grievances addressed the same subject matter.

The Tribunal deferred the application to avoid adjudicative duplication and inconsistent decisions, as the grievance process was based on the same facts and human rights issues.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

The respondent subsequently made an assignment in bankruptcy.

The Tribunal considered whether the application was stayed under section 69.3(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The Tribunal concluded that the application is stayed and ordered the applicant to provide evidence that the stay has been lifted or written submissions on why she is entitled to continue, failing which the application may be dismissed.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application as abandoned after he failed to attend a scheduled mediation.

He argued he did not receive notice of the proceedings due to a change in his email address.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant either received notice or failed to receive it due to his own fault in not updating his contact information as required by the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability after his employment as a bar steward was terminated.

The respondent argued the termination was for economic reasons and that the decision was made before the applicant raised any health concerns.

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

Finding that the recommendation to terminate the applicant's employment was made prior to the respondent having any knowledge of his health issues, the Tribunal concluded there was no reasonable prospect of proving the termination was based on a prohibited ground.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested an adjournment of her scheduled hearing two days prior, citing 'personal dilemmas'.

The applicant had previously failed to comply with disclosure deadlines and Case Assessment Directions.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, finding that the applicant failed to provide detailed reasons or demonstrate extraordinary or exceptional circumstances as required by the Tribunal's Practice Direction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment leading to her termination.

The respondents requested dismissal for lack of jurisdiction or deferral pending a related complaint filed with the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

As the applicant consented to deferral, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the federal complaint, leaving the jurisdictional issue to be decided if the application is reactivated.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment.

The respondent requested early dismissal on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to respond to the request, warning that failure to do so could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

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

After his counsel withdrew, the applicant failed to file witness statements or documents by the deadline.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to file materials and confirm his intention to proceed by a specified date, warning that failure to do so could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant did not respond.

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

The respondents requested reconsideration of an interim decision that declined to defer the human rights application pending the conclusion of the applicant's civil claim.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the interim decision was not a final decision that disposed of the central issues in the complaint, and therefore could not be the subject of a reconsideration request under Rule 26.1.

The respondent requested an order preventing the applicant from calling witnesses due to the applicant's failure to comply with Rule 17 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, which requires the delivery of a witness list and statements 45 days prior to the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had not complied with the rule, having provided only a chart referencing documents instead of proper witness statements.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to file the required materials within 5 days, failing which he might not be permitted to call witnesses at the upcoming hearing.

The respondent requested an adjournment of a scheduled one-day hearing because three of his proposed witnesses would be absent due to work-related obligations.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the Notice of Hearing required parties to advise of unavailability within 14 days, and that under the Tribunal's Practice Direction, adjournments are only granted in extraordinary circumstances.

The Tribunal held that witness unavailability due to work obligations is not an extraordinary circumstance warranting an adjournment.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on multiple grounds.

The applicant also had a concurrent union grievance in progress relating to the same facts.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intention to Defer.

Finding that the grievance proceeding had not concluded and involved the same facts, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code against a corporate respondent and five individual respondents.

Two of the individual respondents no longer worked for the corporate respondent and had not filed responses.

The Tribunal ordered the corporate respondent to provide the last known addresses of the two former employees so that notice of the application could be delivered to them.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race and colour regarding the termination of her employment.

Prior to the application, the applicant's union had grieved the termination, resulting in a settlement where the applicant received $5,000 and signed a release covering any human rights claims related to her employment.

The respondent requested early dismissal of the application.

The Tribunal found that allowing the application to proceed after the applicant had settled the grievance and released the respondent would constitute an abuse of process.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of age in housing after being evicted when the respondent landlord changed his rental policy to 'students only'.

The respondent requested early dismissal, arguing the matter was already decided by the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB).

The LTB had previously dismissed the applicant's claim, finding the tenancy was exempt under the Residential Tenancies Act because the parties shared a kitchen and bathroom.

The Tribunal applied the doctrine of issue estoppel, finding the LTB had already determined the essential factual questions required to apply the shared accommodation exemption under section 21(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding filed requests for security measures, production of documents, and an adjournment of the scheduled hearing.

The Tribunal denied the security request, finding no reasonable basis for the applicant's allegations of death threats.

The production request was denied because the requested documents, including post-resignation corporate merger details and respondents' personal tax information, were not arguably relevant to the Code-related allegations.

The adjournment request was denied as the applicant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in housing.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to file a witness list, witness statements, and documents, warning that failure to do so could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to comply with the direction or communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

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

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

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations of failure to accommodate prior to the application date, finding they were barred by previous binding settlements.

The Tribunal also dismissed the reprisal allegations for lack of evidence.

However, the Tribunal allowed the application to proceed regarding a specific allegation of failure to accommodate that occurred in October 2010, after the application was filed.

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

A summary hearing was scheduled by teleconference, which the applicant failed to attend.

The applicant later advised the Tribunal that he experienced technical difficulties and requested a re-hearing.

After initially failing to copy the respondents on his request, the applicant complied following a Case Assessment Direction.

Finding no bad faith, the adjudicator ordered a re-hearing of the summary hearing.