HRTO 2012

The applicant filed a request to reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the resolution of a related grievance proceeding.

The respondents opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the request to reactivate because the grievance proceeding was ongoing and a resumption date for the arbitration hearing had been set.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of race, colour, place of origin, and ethnic origin by a Justice of the Peace and court officials.

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

The applicant alleged that white lawyers received adjournments while he did not, that a confidential directive instructed court officials to discriminate, and that he was improperly denied an audio recording of his hearing.

The Tribunal found the applicant had no evidence to support his allegations and dismissed the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

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 under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal requested submissions on whether it had jurisdiction to proceed with the application and warned that failure to respond could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond by the deadline.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The respondent requested an order prohibiting the applicant from presenting evidence because the applicant failed to deliver a witness list and witness statements 45 days before the hearing, as required by Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The Tribunal declined to make the requested order at this time, instead directing the applicant to immediately provide the required witness information by a specified deadline.

The Tribunal also agreed to hear the respondent's preliminary objections at the upcoming hearing.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision dismissing her human rights application for failing to comply with a Case Assessment Direction (CAD) requiring the filing of pre-hearing documents.

The applicant argued she did not receive the CAD in a timely manner because she was away from her mailing address.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the CAD was properly served to the mailing address provided by the applicant, and that she likely had notice of the CAD through email correspondence but failed to contact the Tribunal.

The respondent employer requested to defer the human rights application alleging disability discrimination pending the outcome of the applicant's duty of fair representation complaint against her union at the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Tribunal dismissed the request as premature, noting that deferral might be appropriate later if the OLRB proceeding results in access to the grievance process.

The Tribunal also granted the union's request to intervene in the application.

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

The parties agreed to mediation, but the applicant failed to attend the scheduled mediation.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to advise whether he intended to proceed with the application, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant did not respond.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

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

After requesting and receiving an extension of time to file a Reply, the applicant failed to update his contact information or respond to subsequent Tribunal correspondence despite warnings that his application could be dismissed.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant opposed an adjournment of the hearing, arguing that the respondent's former legal representative gave conflicting and inconsistent reasons for seeking the adjournment.

The Tribunal held that even if these submissions had been considered prior to the initial interim decision granting the adjournment, the hearing would still have been adjourned.

The respondent was left without legal representation through no fault of his own and had insufficient notice to retain new counsel.

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

The Tribunal scheduled a mediation, but the respondent requested a rescheduling.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide her availability for alternative dates, but she failed to respond.

After a subsequent warning letter went unanswered, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of record of offences, association, and reprisal.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss as the initial application did not appear to identify specific acts of discrimination under the Code.

After reviewing the applicant's written submissions, which detailed allegations of age and ethnic origin discrimination, the Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the application fell outside its jurisdiction, except for the ground of record of offences.

The Tribunal ordered the application to proceed on the remaining grounds.

The respondent requested to defer the human rights application pending the outcome of an internal workplace discrimination and harassment prevention policy investigation.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that an internal investigation is not a legal proceeding that could lead to inconsistent findings of fact and law, and therefore deferral was not appropriate.

The applicant requested to reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of a related Small Claims Court action.

The respondent confirmed the civil action had concluded and did not object to the reactivation.

The Tribunal granted the request and directed the matter to mediation.

The respondents requested to defer the human rights application pending the resolution of the applicant's grievance.

The respondents subsequently advised the Tribunal that the grievance had been withdrawn.

Finding that there was no other proceeding to defer to, the Tribunal denied the request to defer and directed that the application be scheduled for mediation.

The union, representing the applicant's workplace, requested to intervene in an application alleging discrimination based on record of offences.

The union argued it had an interest in the outcome as potential remedies could impact the collective agreement or other members.

As neither the applicant nor the respondents opposed the request, the Tribunal granted the union intervenor status.

The applicant's mother filed a human rights application on behalf of her infant daughter.

Following a court decision granting Crown wardship of the child to the respondent agency, the Tribunal directed the mother to confirm her intention to proceed and her status to do so.

The mother failed to properly copy the respondents on her response and did not identify the basis for her status, despite warnings from the Tribunal.

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

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

The respondent, applicant, and the applicant's union all requested that the application be deferred pending the conclusion of an outstanding grievance and arbitration proceeding.

The union also requested intervenor status.

The Tribunal granted the union intervenor status and deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance and arbitration proceedings.

The applicant, a black man of the Jewish faith, alleged that the respondent discriminated against him by banning him from its private event venue.

The respondent claimed the applicant was banned due to suspicious behaviour regarding alcohol at previous events and an incident where he was escorted off the premises by police.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's decision was motivated by genuine concerns about protecting its liquor license, not by the applicant's race, colour, ancestry, or creed.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a Black woman employed as a temporary administrative assistant, alleged discrimination on the basis of race and colour when she was not hired for a permanent position.

The respondent employer asserted that the successful candidate had a broader skill set and that the applicant had minor performance issues.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant established a prima facie case of discrimination, the respondent provided a credible, non-discriminatory explanation for its hiring decision.

The Tribunal concluded that the decision was based on the successful candidate's experience and the applicant's past performance, rather than race or colour.

The application was dismissed.