HRTO 2012

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

He subsequently requested to add his former supervisor as a personal respondent to prevent the corporate respondent from avoiding liability by claiming the supervisor acted in a personal capacity.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the corporate respondent conceded it would be vicariously liable under s. 46.3(1) of the Human Rights Code for any discriminatory conduct by the supervisor in the course of her employment.

As there was no compelling reason to add the supervisor personally, the request was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex and sexual solicitation.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to file witness lists, statements, and documents, warning that failure to do so could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to file the required materials or contact the Tribunal.

Consequently, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment on the basis of disability, following his termination after taking time off for physiotherapy for a workplace injury.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed at a summary hearing for having no reasonable prospect of success, arguing the termination was for failing to follow time-off procedures.

The Tribunal found there were disputed facts requiring evidence and credibility determinations, and declined to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal also directed the parties to provide written submissions on whether the application should be deferred pending the outcome of the applicant's ongoing WSIB proceedings.

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

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

The applicant failed to attend the summary hearing and did not communicate with the Tribunal.

The application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment.

The Tribunal directed the parties to file witness lists, statements, and documents pursuant to Rules 16 and 17.

The applicant failed to comply with these directions and a subsequent Case Assessment Direction warning that the application might be dismissed as abandoned.

Due to the applicant's failure to respond or comply, the Tribunal found the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant requested that a scheduled summary hearing be adjourned sine die, and the respondents requested that the application be deferred pending the conclusion of a parallel proceeding before the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB).

The applicant consented to the deferral.

The applicant also alleged bias and requested the appointment of an independent board or person to hear the application.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the OLRB proceeding and noted it has no authority to appoint another board or person to decide applications under the Code.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal regarding his return to work.

The respondent employer filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to defer the application pending the outcome of a concurrent union grievance filed on the applicant's behalf.

The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the facts and human rights issues in both proceedings.

Noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority to enforce human rights obligations, and absent any submissions opposing the request, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process.

The applicant, who was self-represented, requested a second adjournment of a preliminary hearing scheduled to address the respondents' request to dismiss the application.

The applicant cited a delay in receiving the Tribunal's previous interim decision denying his first adjournment request, as well as personal circumstances involving his daughter's medical condition.

The respondents opposed the request but did not assert any prejudice.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding exceptional circumstances justified the request, including the lack of timely notice of the previous decision, the applicant's unrepresented status, and the unchallenged personal circumstances.

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

One of the named respondents failed to file a Response within the required 35 days.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondent to file a Response within 10 days, warning that failure to do so could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming the respondent to have accepted the allegations.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination.

The respondents requested the removal of a named personal respondent, which the applicant consented to, and the Tribunal granted the request.

The Waterloo Regional Police Association (WRPA), the applicant's union, requested intervenor status.

The applicant opposed the intervention, alleging the WRPA had failed to assist him and discriminated against him by refusing legal funding.

The Tribunal granted the WRPA's request to intervene, finding that a union typically has a substantial interest in a member's human rights application and that the applicant's allegations against the union did not constitute exceptional circumstances to deny intervention.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability after his employer refused to reinstate him following his resignation.

The respondent employer requested that the application be deferred because the applicant's union had filed a grievance based on the same facts and human rights issues.

The Tribunal noted its normal practice of deferring applications where a concurrent grievance proceeding can address the human rights issues.

Finding substantial overlap and no objections, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process.

The respondent requested the dismissal of part of the applicant's human rights application, arguing it was barred by s. 53(8) of the Human Rights Code because it raised issues from prior complaints filed with the Commission.

The Tribunal found that the re-drafted application did not attempt to re-raise the prior allegations and dismissed the respondent's request.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant's request for document production as premature, noting that the parties' disclosure obligations had not yet crystallized since a Notice of Hearing had not been issued.

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

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to file a witness list, witness statements, and documents, warning that failure to do so could result in dismissal.

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

Consequently, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision addressing the respondent London ServiceOntario Office's failure to file a Response as directed in a previous order.

The Tribunal noted the potential consequences of failing to participate, including the possibility of proceeding without further notice and deeming the respondent to have accepted the allegations.

The respondent was given a final deadline to file its Response and explain the delay, failing which the Tribunal indicated it may proceed under Rule 5.5 of its Rules of Procedure.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to services because of disability.

He claimed the WSIB required him to provide a new medical note every 12 weeks to continue chiropractic treatment for a workplace injury, unlike individuals taking medication.

The Tribunal held a Summary Hearing and dismissed the application, finding that the allegations related to administrative issues associated with benefit continuation and not to the ground of disability under the Code.

The Tribunal concluded it does not have the general power to deal with alleged unfairness in benefit programs.

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

The Tribunal had previously deferred the application pending the conclusion of ongoing grievance proceedings.

After the applicant failed to respond to Tribunal correspondence regarding the status of the grievance proceedings and failed to file a formal request to withdraw after indicating an intention to do so, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant alleged that the respondent school board reprised and discriminated against him by accessing and using his Ontario Student Record without consent to defend against a previous human rights application.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding it had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal ruled that the respondent's use of the records in a legal proceeding was protected by absolute privilege, and there was no evidence linking the respondent's actions to the applicant's age or disability.

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 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 respondent requested to defer the applicant's human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability, pending a proceeding before the Grievance Settlement Board (GSB).

The Tribunal found a substantive overlap between the issues raised in the application and the GSB proceeding, specifically regarding whether the position offered by the respondent accommodated the applicant's medical restrictions.

To avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions, the Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application pending the conclusion of the GSB proceedings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging failure to accommodate a disability arising from a workplace injury.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed for delay, arguing the injury occurred more than a year prior to filing.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding the alleged failure to accommodate occurred within the one-year limitation period.

The Tribunal also granted the applicant's request to amend the application to remove individual respondents and declined to defer the matter, as the applicant was not actively pursuing a related WSIB appeal.