HRTO 2012

The respondent employer requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision finding it failed to accommodate the applicant's disability.

The respondent argued the adjudicator placed undue weight on ambiguous WSIB case manager notes when assessing credibility regarding whether the applicant was forced to work beyond his medical restrictions.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding the respondent was attempting to re-argue the case and challenge factual findings, which does not meet the test for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

The adjudicator maintained that the WSIB notes corroborated the applicant's testimony.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed five of his six allegations of discrimination and reprisal.

The applicant argued that the adjudicator applied the wrong legal test for the duty to accommodate and erred in finding the respondent's response to harassment allegations reasonable.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant was attempting to re-argue his case and had not established that the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence or that there were other factors outweighing the public interest in the finality of decisions.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination regarding the termination of her employment.

A concurrent union grievance proceeding was also in progress concerning the same termination.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer, to which no parties responded.

The Tribunal ordered the application deferred pending the resolution of the grievance to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that the survivorship benefit provisions of the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan discriminate on the basis of sex and marital status.

The respondent Board sought early dismissal of this and 82 other similar applications for delay.

The applicant brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings asking that the application be held in abeyance pending the Tribunal's determination of a lead case on the issue of delay.

The respondents did not object.

The Tribunal ordered the application held in abeyance pending the determination of the lead case.

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

The respondent failed to file a Response by the deadline set 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 Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, and granted the respondent 10 days to file a Response along with an explanation for the delay.

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

She brought a Request for Order During Proceedings to amend the remedies sought in her application and to add the Centre for Rational Learning Inc. as a respondent, arguing it was interrelated with her employer, Haydon Youth Services Inc. The Tribunal granted the request to amend the remedies, noting the passage of time since the application was filed.

The Tribunal also granted the request to add the Centre as a respondent, finding no prejudice to the respondents and noting the interrelated nature of the two corporations.

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

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

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

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The complainant requested leave to withdraw her human rights complaint against the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario granted leave and the complaint was withdrawn.

The complainant sought to withdraw her human rights complaint against the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario granted leave and the complaint was withdrawn.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to goods and services based on age, colour, and race.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to be out of time and did not describe an incident of discrimination.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The applicant argued there was new evidence and that the decision conflicted with established case law.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was attempting to re-argue issues already canvassed and that the original decision was consistent with established accommodation principles.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

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

She later wrote to the Tribunal requesting to withdraw her application.

The Tribunal sent multiple letters advising the applicant of the procedural requirements to withdraw and warning that failure to respond would result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

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

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to employment on the ground of sex (pregnancy).

She also filed an Employment Standards claim regarding pregnancy-related reprisal.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the conclusion of the Employment Standards process.

Neither party filed submissions.

Finding significant overlap between the two proceedings, the Tribunal deferred the application to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions.

In an interim decision regarding a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability and reprisal, the Tribunal addressed preliminary issues including document production and timeliness.

The Tribunal declined to order the respondent to create new statistical documents regarding new hires and transfers, but ordered the respondent to produce existing information if available.

The Tribunal also ordered the disclosure of the applicant's medical records held by the respondent's health care centre, finding them arguably relevant, subject to strict confidentiality conditions.

The issue of timeliness of certain allegations was deferred to the hearing.

La requérante, une enseignante, a déposé une requête alléguant de la discrimination en matière d'emploi fondée sur le lieu d'origine, la croyance, l'âge et des représailles.

Le Tribunal a tenu une audience sommaire pour déterminer si la requête avait une chance raisonnable d'être accueillie.

Le Tribunal a conclu que la requérante n'avait présenté aucune preuve permettant d'établir un lien entre les actions des intimés et les motifs de discrimination invoqués.

La requête a été rejetée dans son intégralité.

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

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to fulfill her pre-hearing obligations, including disclosing documents and providing a witness list, and warned that failure to comply could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to comply with the direction.

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

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

The respondent filed witness statements and documents, but the applicants failed to do so.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction warning the applicants that failure to comply with the Rules could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicants did not respond or file the required materials.

The application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision dismissing his human rights application as untimely and having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant argued he had new evidence from former and current employees regarding a screening test and that the Tribunal erred in its timeliness analysis.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding the applicant failed to explain why the new evidence could not have been obtained earlier and that his arguments regarding a series of incidents were an impermissible attempt to repair deficiencies in his original case presentation.

The applicants sought to withdraw several human rights applications, which the Tribunal granted with leave.

Additionally, six applications were dismissed as abandoned because the applicants could not be contacted and failed to confirm their desire to proceed by the extended deadline.

The decision noted that matters other than wage claims remained open in separate files.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in housing based on disability and receipt of public assistance.

After completing his evidence on the first day of the hearing, the applicant failed to appear for the scheduled continuation.

Following a Case Assessment Direction to which the applicant did not respond, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.