HRTO 2012

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal in employment after the respondent employers refused to hire her for a greeter position.

The respondents requested deferral of the application pending the outcome of a union grievance dealing with the same facts.

The applicant's union requested intervenor status.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene, noting its interest in the outcome and the lack of opposition.

The Tribunal also deferred the application to avoid inconsistent decisions, as the grievance and the application significantly overlapped in facts and issues.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability and age.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed the applicant's request for document disclosure and an adjournment.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to disclose any blank job application forms from the relevant time period.

However, the Tribunal denied the applicant's request to adjourn the hearing to obtain medical evidence, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify the late request.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the hearing because his paralegal's licence was suspended by the Law Society of Upper Canada, leaving him unrepresented and non-compliant with pre-hearing disclosure rules.

The respondents and intervenor consented to the request.

The Tribunal found these to be extraordinary circumstances, granted the adjournment, and set new deadlines for the applicant's pre-hearing disclosure.

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

A Notice of Intent to Dismiss was issued because the application was filed more than one year after the applicant's termination.

The applicant submitted that he was working with a WSIB return to work specialist and was unaware of his termination until shortly before filing.

The Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the delay was not incurred in good faith and allowed the application to proceed.

The respondent requested to defer the human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability and age pending the completion of a concurrent grievance arbitration process.

The applicant opposed the deferral, citing delays and financial difficulties.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting the substantial overlap between the facts and human rights issues in both proceedings, and deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance process.

The applicant filed an Application for Contravention of Settlement alleging the respondent breached Minutes of Settlement.

The respondent filed a Notice of Intention to make a Proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, resulting in a stay of proceedings.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to advise within one year if the stay was lifted or other steps were taken, warning that failure to do so could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant failed to respond, and the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

The respondent in a human rights application requested an order to amend its Response to include a new narrative and correct its legal name, having recently retained counsel.

The applicant opposed the amendment, arguing the new information was false.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting the early stage of the proceedings, the lack of prejudice to the applicant, and that credibility issues could be addressed at the hearing.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application because a concurrent grievance proceeding was dealing with the same facts and issues.

The applicant did not dispute the existence of the ongoing grievance.

To avoid the possibility of inconsistent decisions, the Tribunal ordered that the application be deferred pending the resolution of the grievance.

The applicant filed an application under section 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 the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant was directed to respond but failed to do so by the specified deadline.

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

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code alleging discrimination in housing based on family status and age.

A hearing was scheduled, and notice was provided to both parties.

Neither party attended the hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned due to the applicant's failure to attend.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment on the basis of disability, relating to workplace discipline and suspension.

The applicant's union requested intervenor status, and the respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the completion of a concurrent grievance regarding the same events.

The Tribunal granted the union intervenor status and deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance process, noting that both parties agreed to the deferral.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on race, sexual orientation, and family status.

The Tribunal had previously deferred the application pending the completion of a related grievance process.

After receiving updates from the parties confirming that the grievance arbitration was scheduled for January 2013, and with no objections filed, the Tribunal ordered the continued deferral of the application pending the conclusion of the grievance process.

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

The respondents failed to file a Response by the required deadline.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondents that failure to participate could result in the Tribunal proceeding without them and deeming them to have accepted the allegations, pursuant to Rule 5.5.

The Tribunal granted the respondents 14 days to file a Response and explain their delay.

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

The Tribunal directed the applicant to file hearing materials or confirm she had none, warning that failure to comply could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

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

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The respondents filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to remove the named personal respondent, Martin Stampfli, from a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability.

The applicant took no position.

Applying the factors from Sigrist and Persaud, the Tribunal found that the corporate respondent, McMaster University, had expressly assumed vicarious liability for the personal respondent's conduct, which occurred in the course of his employment.

Finding no compelling reason to proceed against the individual and no prejudice to the applicant, the Tribunal ordered the personal respondent removed from the proceeding.

The respondents requested that the human rights application be deferred and dismissed on various grounds, including that the subject matter was previously dealt with by the Ontario Human Rights Commission and that the applicant had signed a full and final release.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Request to Defer and Dismiss directing the applicant to file submissions.

The applicant failed to file submissions or a Reply.

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

The applicant requested to reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the resolution of related proceedings before the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB).

The applicant provided an OLRB decision demonstrating that those proceedings had concluded.

The respondents did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal granted the request to reactivate and directed the respondents to file their responses.

The respondent requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that awarded the applicant $10,000 for injury to dignity following an incident where he was physically restrained at work after suffering a seizure.

The Tribunal granted the reconsideration request, finding that the original adjudicator had improperly attributed liability to the respondent for the actions of third-party paramedics and police officers without establishing a relationship under section 46.3(1) of the Human Rights Code.

As the original adjudicator was no longer with the Tribunal, a new hearing was ordered.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding alleging employment discrimination and reprisal brought a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking production of emails, job applications of other employees, and meeting notes.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to produce the meeting notes if they could be located, as the respondent conceded their potential relevance.

The Tribunal dismissed the requests for the emails, which no longer existed, and the job applications, which were deemed not arguably relevant to the specific allegations of reprisal remaining in the application.

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

The respondent and the applicant's bargaining agent both requested that the application be dismissed on the basis that the respondent falls exclusively within federal jurisdiction.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to file submissions on the jurisdictional issue and warned that failure to do so could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's directions or the bargaining agent's Request for Order.

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