HRTO 2012

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application as abandoned for failing to comply with a Case Assessment Direction.

The applicant submitted that she did not receive a copy of the direction.

The Tribunal granted the request for reconsideration, finding that the applicant was entitled to notice that her application was vulnerable to dismissal, and directed the Registrar to schedule a one-day hearing.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to add a police officer and the Hamilton Police Services as respondents, to compel the lifting of a trespass notice preventing his access to a courthouse, and to order the production of original notes and policy documents.

The Tribunal dismissed the requests in their entirety, finding them decidedly untimely as they were made less than a month before the scheduled hearing.

The Tribunal noted the applicant had long known of the police involvement and that he would have the opportunity to cross-examine the officer at the hearing.

The applicant, a 43-year-old property accountant, alleged that his employment was terminated because of his age, contrary to the Human Rights Code.

The respondent maintained that the termination was part of a corporate reorganization and based on the applicant's performance issues.

The Tribunal found no evidence, statistical or otherwise, to support the allegation of age discrimination.

The respondent provided a credible, non-discriminatory explanation for the termination, demonstrating that age was not a factor in the decision.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested a last-minute adjournment of the third day of the hearing for medical reasons, supported by a medical note.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's illness constituted exceptional circumstances under its Practice Direction on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations.

The adjournment was granted, and the applicant was directed to provide further medical information regarding his ability to proceed within eight weeks.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing on the basis of race and ethnic origin.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the resolution of a related small claims court action initiated by the applicant, which dealt with the same subject matter except for one incident.

As the parties did not file submissions opposing the deferral, the Tribunal ordered the application deferred to avoid concurrent proceedings and the possibility of inconsistent decisions.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the applicant's human rights application pending the conclusion of two grievances filed on his behalf by his union.

The applicant opposed the deferral, arguing that the grievances dealt with pre-notice and severance entitlements under the collective agreement, while the human rights application alleged discrimination based on disability and age.

The Tribunal denied the deferral request, finding that although the proceedings flowed from the same event, they dealt with different issues.

The respondents requested an order to defer the human rights application pending the outcome of a related criminal proceeding involving the applicant.

The Tribunal found that deferral was appropriate because the legal issues in both proceedings arose out of the same factual circumstances, the applicant consented to the deferral, and proceeding concurrently would risk inconsistent findings.

The application was deferred.

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

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

The applicant acknowledged that he did not inform the respondent employer of his learning disability when he requested more time to learn tasks during his training period.

The Tribunal found that because the applicant failed to disclose his disability, there was no evidence connecting the employer's actions to a prohibited ground under the Code.

The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

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

Neither party complied with their disclosure obligations under Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the hearing on consent, citing the applicant's recent intention to call expert medical evidence.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify it, and ordered both parties to immediately file their required materials or face consequences, including dismissal of the application or exclusion of witnesses.

The applicant filed a request for reconsideration of a decision that dismissed his human rights application for timeliness.

The applicant argued he was entitled to have a conference call rescheduled.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had been directed to respond to the timeliness issue in writing, and a conference call was unnecessary after the application was dismissed on that basis.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal subsequently 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 specified deadline.

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

The applicant filed two human rights applications alleging discrimination and reprisal on the basis of disability against his former employer, an adult entertainment establishment.

The applicant brought requests to consolidate the applications and for an interim remedy of $1,500 per month for lost wages, alleging constructive dismissal.

The Tribunal granted the request to consolidate the applications to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the request for an interim remedy, finding that the applicant failed to provide signed declarations as required by the Rules and failed to establish that the balance of harm or convenience favoured granting the extraordinary relief.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability after his condominium corporation refused to allow him to widen his driveway for a second outdoor parking spot.

The condominium corporation had previously brought a Superior Court application against him for altering common elements without permission, during which the applicant raised his human rights and accommodation arguments.

The Superior Court ruled against him.

The Tribunal dismissed the human rights application under section 45.1 of the Code, finding that the substance of the application had already been appropriately dealt with in the prior court proceeding and that the applicant could not use the Tribunal to collaterally attack the court's decision.

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

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the application pending the outcome of the applicant's civil action in the Superior Court of Justice, which involved identical facts and issues.

The Tribunal found that the civil action would involve consideration of the principal allegations in the application and ordered that the application be deferred.

The applicant requested a second extension of time to file his witness list, witness statements, and documents for an upcoming hearing, citing difficulties in obtaining assistance from the Human Rights Legal Support Centre.

The respondent opposed the request, arguing prejudice due to the proximity of the hearing date.

The Tribunal granted the extension, noting that while the applicant had delayed, the respondent had also failed to meet its own disclosure requirements.

Both parties were ordered to file their materials by the new deadline.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of race, age, and association with respect to housing accommodation after being denied the opportunity to view rental apartments without an appointment.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's proposed evidence, if accepted as true, could arguably give rise to an inference of discrimination.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application and directed that it proceed to a hearing on the merits.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intention to Defer pending the resolution of a related Landlord and Tenant Board proceeding, but neither party responded.

Following a subsequent Case Assessment Direction warning that the application could be dismissed if the applicant did not confirm an intent to proceed, the applicant failed to respond.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

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 directing the respondents to file a Response within 14 days, along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice to them.

The applicant requested to reactivate her human rights application after her union withdrew her grievance without prejudice or precedent.

The respondents opposed reactivation and sought dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the grievance process appropriately dealt with the matter.

The Tribunal found that a withdrawn grievance does not constitute a proceeding that dealt with the substance of the application.

The request to reactivate was granted and the request to dismiss was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging her employment was terminated because she was pregnant.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant had also filed a claim with the Ministry of Labour under the Employment Standards Act, 2000 based on the same allegations.

Finding that the issues and factual circumstances were similar and that there was potential for overlapping remedies, the Tribunal deferred consideration of the application pending the conclusion of the Ministry of Labour proceeding.