HRTO 2012

The respondent requested deferral of the human rights application due to overlap with another application relying on the same facts.

The applicant consented to the deferral.

The Tribunal granted the request to defer the application to avoid inconsistent decisions on facts or law.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code but failed to comply with the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure regarding the exchange and filing of documents and witness lists.

After failing to respond to a Case Assessment Direction warning of potential dismissal, and failing to respond to the respondents' Request for an Order during Proceedings, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application as abandoned.

The application was originally dismissed after the applicant failed to file required pre-hearing documentation and failed to respond to a Case Assessment Direction.

The applicant argued that he had already provided the necessary materials and that his application was well-founded.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the applicant failed to comply with clear directions and that no exceptional circumstances existed to justify reconsidering the decision.

The applicant requested an order compelling a witness to attend the hearing, or alternatively, that the Tribunal request a bench warrant from the Superior Court.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that a properly served summons already compels attendance, and that under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, the party seeking the witness's attendance must apply directly to the Superior Court for a bench warrant.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to services because of disability and sex, after the WSIB denied him benefits for a psychological condition.

The WSIB had applied its policy requiring a psychotraumatic disability to become manifest within five years of the injury.

The applicant argued the policy discriminated against men, who experience and report depression differently than women.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding it had no reasonable prospect of success because the applicant's core argument was a factual dispute that the WSIB had misapplied its policy to his case, rather than a claim that the policy itself had an adverse impact on him.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to be filed outside the one-year limitation period.

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

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

The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination and reprisal.

She subsequently requested a Tribunal-ordered inquiry under section 44 of the Human Rights Code to gather witness evidence, arguing it was necessary to prevent the respondent from pressuring potential witnesses.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding no evidence to support the applicant's claims of potential duress or lost evidence, and noting that an inquiry is not a substitute for the usual production process.

The applicant, a hospital porter, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal against her employer and union after she was terminated.

The employer claimed she was terminated for fraudulently claiming to be disabled while working at a concurrent job.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the union, finding no evidence that its failure to file a grievance was influenced by discrimination.

However, the Tribunal declined to dismiss the application against the employer, finding that issues regarding disability, accommodation, and the reasons for termination required a full hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination and reprisal on the basis of race, ancestry, and ethnic origin.

She brought a request for an order during proceedings to amend her remedial claims and to compel early disclosure of documents from the respondents.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, noting the respondents did not oppose it and there was no prejudice.

However, the Tribunal denied the request for early disclosure as premature, finding no reason to depart from the standard timelines set out in Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant filed a human rights application.

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

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondent to file a Response within 14 days, along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice to the respondent.

The personal respondent requested an adjournment of the hearing, claiming he did not receive notice until shortly before the hearing dates due to a change in his contact information.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, finding that the respondent's failure to update his contact information with the Tribunal for over a year did not constitute extraordinary circumstances.

The Tribunal permitted the respondent to file witness statements and documentary evidence late, subject to the applicant's right to object at the hearing.

The Toronto Police Association filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking intervenor status in two consolidated human rights applications brought by employees against the Toronto Police Services Board.

Neither the applicants nor the respondent opposed the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting its standard practice to grant intervenor status to a bargaining agent in applications alleging discrimination in employment, absent exceptional circumstances.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sexual harassment and discrimination based on sex and family status, specifically related to her pregnancy.

She had previously filed an Employment Standards claim alleging constructive dismissal due to her pregnancy.

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

Finding that the two proceedings arose from the same factual circumstances and raised overlapping legal issues and potential remedies, the Tribunal ordered the deferral of the human rights application to avoid the risk of inconsistent findings of fact.

The applicant, alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal, filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking the production of documents related to his transfer to the Canada Revenue Agency and a job competition.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to disclose the individual panel members' scores from the job competition, finding them arguably relevant to the applicant's allegations.

The request for documents related to the transfer was dismissed as the respondent had already disclosed all documents in its possession.

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

The corporate respondent filed a response, but the personal respondent failed to do so by the deadline.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the personal respondent to file a response within 14 days, along with an explanation for the delay, warning that failure to do so could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice to her under Rule 5.5.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to respond to the respondent's requests within 14 days, warning that failure to do so could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond.

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

The applicants in three separate human rights applications against the same corporate respondent and overlapping individual respondents sought to have their applications consolidated.

The respondents opposed consolidation, arguing it would not avoid delay and raised concerns about potential collusion among the applicants.

The Tribunal applied the factors from Persaud and found that the applications shared significant common issues of fact and law, including allegations of a poisoned work environment and racial discrimination during a similar timeframe.

The Tribunal ordered the applications to be consolidated to ensure efficient use of resources and convenience for witnesses.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, family status, marital status, age, and reprisal in relation to his employment.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred pending the outcome of a concurrent grievance proceeding regarding the applicant's entitlement to sick leave.

The Tribunal found significant overlap between the facts and issues in the grievance and the disability allegations in the application.

To avoid inconsistent decisions, the Tribunal ordered the application deferred pending the completion of the grievance process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment, which was previously deferred pending the outcome of a grievance arbitration.

The respondents filed a request to dismiss the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the grievance arbitration appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal reactivated the application and ordered a half-day teleconference hearing to determine the section 45.1 dismissal request.

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 Rules of Procedure, and granted the respondent 14 days to file a Response along with an explanation for the delay.