HRTO 2012

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging failure to accommodate and reprisal.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the application pending the conclusion of an ongoing small claims court action dealing with similar facts.

The Tribunal found that deferral was appropriate to avoid inconsistent findings of fact and potential overlap in remedies.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of an interim decision that denied her request to amend her human rights application and add new parties.

The Tribunal denied the reconsideration request because it concerned a preliminary procedural direction rather than a final decision, was filed almost a year after the 30-day deadline without a reasonable explanation for the delay, and failed to provide a valid basis for reconsideration under the Tribunal's rules.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex and family status, claiming she was demoted and terminated after taking two maternity leaves.

The applicant had also commenced a civil action for wrongful dismissal.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the resolution of the civil action.

The Tribunal found that both proceedings pertained to the applicant's termination and would require similar factual findings.

To avoid duplicative proceedings and the risk of inconsistent findings, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the civil action.

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

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

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondents of the consequences of failing to participate and granting them 14 days to file a Response with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice.

The applicant, who alleged his employment was terminated in reprisal for reporting sexual harassment, sought production of the respondent's budget, sales, and hours documents for its other stores and for his former store after his departure.

The respondent argued the termination was due to the applicant's failure to meet sales targets and that the requested documents were irrelevant.

The Tribunal found the documents arguably relevant to assessing whether the performance rationale was pretextual, and ordered the respondent to produce the documents for its Southern Ontario stores.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to services because of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, citizenship, ethnic origin, and association.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The personal respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because his legal representative was served with a subpoena and became unavailable.

The Tribunal found exceptional circumstances, noting the respondent was diligent in seeking new representation but had insufficient time.

The adjournment was granted in advance of the hearing to save costs, and new deadlines were set for the respondent to file hearing materials.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the outcome of related Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) proceedings.

The applicant argued that the WSIB process was lengthy and had denied her Loss of Earnings benefits for a specific period, a decision she was appealing.

The Tribunal denied the request to reactivate, finding that the WSIB proceedings dealing with the same subject matter and remedies were still ongoing, and allowing the application to proceed would result in concurrent legal proceedings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal by her employer following her return to work after cancer treatment and a bereavement leave.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the alleged incidents occurred more than one year before the application was filed.

The applicant's counsel submitted that the delay was partly due to a paralegal failing to carry out instructions and the applicant's disability-related challenges.

The Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that a request to extend the time limit under section 34(2) of the Code would fail, and ordered the application to be served on the respondent.

The applicant alleged discrimination with respect to employment based on race, place of origin, ancestry, ethnic origin, and creed.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application, arguing they were not the applicant's employer and there was no evidence of discrimination.

The Tribunal found that section 5 of the Code is not limited to formal employment relationships and that the applicant's evidence, if proven, could lead to a finding of discrimination.

The request to dismiss the application was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on citizenship, place of origin, and reprisal.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to be filed more than one year after the last alleged incident and failed to identify specific acts of discrimination by the respondent.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not provide a good faith explanation for the delay, which related to events from the 1970s and 1980s.

The application was dismissed as being outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to amend his human rights application by adding reprisal as a ground, changing the date of the last incident, and clarifying the remedies sought.

The respondent did not oppose the amendments.

Applying the factors for amending pleadings, the Tribunal granted the request, noting the lack of opposition and that the matter had not yet been scheduled for a hearing.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment due to his association with a co-worker who raised human rights concerns.

The Tribunal previously deferred the application pending a motion to dismiss in a related grievance arbitration.

Following the issuance of an interim award in the arbitration regarding breaches of confidentiality, the applicant requested reactivation.

The Tribunal reactivated the application and scheduled a teleconference to hear the respondents' motion to dismiss or strike parts of the application on the basis of abuse of process related to the use of confidential information.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing based on race and disability against the City of Mississauga and his former lawyer.

The applicant claimed he unknowingly bought a house with high voltage underground cables and that the respondents failed to protect him or acted fraudulently.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss and, after reviewing the applicant's submissions, dismissed the application at a preliminary stage because it did not allege any specific acts of discrimination related to a Code ground.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging lack of accessibility at the respondent book store.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed several Requests for Order during Proceedings (RFOPs).

The respondent book store sought reconsideration of a previous decision denying dismissal under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, and requested a Tribunal Ordered Inquiry under s. 44.

The Tribunal denied the reconsideration request, noting that interim procedural rulings are not final decisions subject to reconsideration.

The request for a Tribunal Ordered Inquiry was also denied as no basis was provided.

Both respondents were granted a brief extension of time to exchange arguably relevant documents.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision dismissing her human rights application as abandoned.

She claimed she did not receive notice of the required information due to homelessness.

The respondents objected, citing prior indulgences, delays, and a lack of evidence.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had communicated via email and failed to explain why she did not receive the emailed directions.

The request for reconsideration was denied as the applicant failed to establish that she did not receive timely notice of the proceedings.

The applicant, a teacher, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal by his employer and union.

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

The Tribunal dismissed all allegations prior to February 2009 as untimely.

It also dismissed the reprisal allegations, finding that whistleblowing is not protected under the Code.

The allegations against the union were dismissed for lack of evidence of differential treatment.

The only surviving issue was the employer's alleged failure to accommodate the applicant's back disability in 2010, which was deferred pending a union grievance.

The applicant filed a fifth human rights application against the respondent church and fifty personal respondents, raising the same allegations of discrimination that had been dismissed in four previous applications.

The Tribunal convened a summary hearing on its own motion to determine whether the application should be dismissed as an abuse of process and whether the applicant should be designated a vexatious litigant.

The Tribunal dismissed the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, finding it was an attempt to relitigate matters already determined.

Applying the factors for vexatious litigants, the Tribunal noted the applicant's history of filing identical applications, naming increasing numbers of personal respondents, and sending over 1,400 repetitive emails to church members.

The Tribunal designated the applicant a vexatious litigant and ordered that he may not commence further applications against the respondents without leave of the Tribunal.

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

The respondents requested that the application be deferred because the applicant had filed approximately 29 disputes under the collective agreement raising the same issues.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process, noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority to decide human rights claims and that deferral is the normal approach when concurrent proceedings raise the same issues.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment.

She also filed grievances with her union regarding the same allegations.

The applicant requested a deferral of her human rights application pending the resolution of the grievance process, and the respondents consented.

The Tribunal granted the deferral, noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority to enforce human rights obligations and that deferral is appropriate where concurrent proceedings raise the same human rights issues.