HRTO 2012

The applicant requested to participate in the upcoming hearing of his human rights application by telephone because he was employed overseas as a university professor.

The respondent opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the credibility of the applicant and other witnesses was a significant issue in the case.

The Tribunal held that the applicant's in-person attendance was necessary to ensure a fair opportunity for cross-examination and to allow the Tribunal to fairly assess credibility.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application regarding his failure to be admitted to a vocational training program.

The applicant argued that the decision was wrong and alleged adjudicator bias.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet the threshold criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5, noting that the request was largely a re-argument of the facts and that the bias allegation was factually incorrect and without merit.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

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

The Tribunal issued two Case Assessment Directions requiring the applicant to provide documents, witness lists, and will-say statements, and warned that failure to comply could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to comply with the directions and did not communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned and cancelled the scheduled hearing dates.

The applicant failed to respond to a Case Assessment Direction requiring him to confirm his intention to participate in the scheduled hearing.

As a result, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario cancelled the hearing and dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing on consent because her doctor was no longer available to testify on the hearing date.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding no exceptional circumstances.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant could testify on the first day of the hearing and that additional hearing dates would likely be required regardless.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the Application for lack of jurisdiction, as it initially failed to set out specific incidents of discrimination related to a Code ground.

In response, the self-represented applicant provided detailed submissions alleging discrimination based on disability, family status, and marital status.

The Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the Application fell outside its jurisdiction and declined to dismiss it at this stage, directing that the Application be delivered to the respondent.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal regarding her termination.

The respondents requested dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter was already dealt with in a grievance arbitration.

The arbitrator had previously found a breach of the Code and awarded general damages.

The Tribunal applied the principles from Figliola, finding that the substance of the application had been appropriately dealt with in the prior proceeding, and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the respondent between 2007 and 2010.

During a case management conference, the Tribunal considered the relevance of prior incidents and a subsequent incident from May 2012.

The Tribunal found both the prior and subsequent incidents to be relevant to the application.

Noting that the applicant had retained counsel regarding the May 2012 incident, the Tribunal directed the applicant to clarify the status of any related legal proceedings and whether they intended to amend the application, which could lead to a deferral of the Tribunal proceedings.

The applicant, who alleged her employment was terminated due to pregnancy, requested the production of documents from the respondent, including sales performance data of other employees, policies, and internal correspondence.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding the documents arguably relevant to the applicant's claim that poor performance was a pretext for her dismissal.

The Tribunal also ordered the respondent to provide the last known contact information of the manager who terminated the applicant's employment.

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

Both the applicant and the respondents filed multiple requests for particulars and production of documents.

The applicant also requested to add a school council as an affected party.

The Tribunal dismissed the requests for particulars and production as premature, noting that early production is only required in exceptional circumstances.

The Tribunal also dismissed the request to add the school council as an affected party, finding no basis for the request, but permitted the council to file a Request to Intervene if it chose to do so.

The applicant filed a human rights application but repeatedly requested delays, citing ill health and the need to secure legal representation.

The Tribunal issued multiple requests for the applicant to provide specific details regarding her accommodation needs and medical restrictions, which she failed to provide.

Noting that the application had been stalled since 2009 and that the applicant had been able to generate significant correspondence on other matters, the Tribunal declined to hold the application in abeyance.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide medical confirmation of her accommodation needs within 14 days, failing which the application would be dismissed as abandoned, and set a schedule for submissions on the respondent's request to dismiss for delay.

The applicant, a student, filed an application alleging the respondent college failed to accommodate his disability and failed to intervene in harassment.

He also requested an interim remedy ordering immediate accommodation, specifically an extension of time for a project.

The respondent provided evidence that it had already granted the extension after the request was filed.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for an interim remedy as moot.

Three applicants filed nearly identical human rights applications against the same respondents, alleging discrimination with respect to contracts, goods, services, and facilities based on disability and association.

The Tribunal considered Rule 1.7(d) of its Rules of Procedure and the factors for consolidation.

Finding a compelling public interest in avoiding a multiplicity of proceedings, the Tribunal ordered the applications consolidated.

The applicant filed a Request to reactivate the Application under Rule 14.3 following the conclusion of a related proceeding before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal.

The respondent's representative asserted that the respondent changed ownership in 2009 and is no longer in business.

The Tribunal granted the request to proceed, noting that the available information did not indicate the respondent company was bankrupt or no longer a legal entity, and directed the Registrar to schedule the Application for a hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, association, and reprisal, culminating in his forced retirement.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed as untimely.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's retirement was the effect of an earlier decision to retire, and no discriminatory acts occurred within the one-year limitation period under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal further held that the applicant failed to provide a good faith explanation for the delay under section 34(2).

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a registered nurse, filed a human rights application alleging racial and ethnic discrimination, harassment, and reprisal by her employer hospital and her union.

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

The Tribunal found that the hospital had reasonably investigated the applicant's complaints and that there was no evidence supporting the reprisal allegations against either the hospital or the union.

These portions of the application were dismissed.

However, the Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide written submissions explaining why she should be permitted to amend her application to include new allegations regarding the cancellation of her shifts.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal in employment.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, questioning whether the allegations fell within its jurisdiction.

After receiving additional submissions from the applicant detailing alleged gender and age discrimination, as well as reprisal for reporting concerns to human resources, the Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the application fell outside its jurisdiction.

The Tribunal ordered the application to be processed and served on the respondents.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability and reprisal by her employer.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed as untimely, as the alleged failure to accommodate occurred in 2008-2009, while the termination letter was sent in April 2011.

The Tribunal found the incidents did not constitute a series of incidents due to a gap of more than one year.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to prove her delay was incurred in good faith due to psychological difficulties.

The 2008-2009 allegations were dismissed, leaving only the April 2011 termination allegation to proceed.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to services after being refused admission to a master's program.

The matter was scheduled for a hearing.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing and did not contact the Tribunal to explain his absence.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had abandoned the application and dismissed it.

The Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services requested an adjournment of a hearing scheduled for October 11 and 12, 2012, after being added as a respondent to a human rights application less than three months prior.

The applicant opposed the adjournment.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that the short timeframe did not afford the Ministry an adequate opportunity to prepare, file its response, and allow the applicant to file a reply.

The Tribunal also directed the parties to mediation.