HRTO 2012

The respondent sought to strike allegations of incidents prior to April 2011 as untimely and to defer the application pending a grievance.

The Tribunal ruled that the application is restricted to the timely allegations from October 2010 to August 2011, but evidence of prior incidents may be admitted for context at the hearing.

The request to defer was denied because the grievance had been withdrawn.

The applicant sought to reactivate his human rights application following the conclusion of a union grievance arbitration regarding his termination.

The respondent opposed, arguing the application should be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code or as an abuse of process because the arbitration award dealt with the substance of the matter.

The Tribunal granted the reactivation request as it was filed within the 60-day time limit, but ordered a preliminary hearing to hear oral submissions on whether the application should be dismissed due to the prior arbitration.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the application on the basis that it appeared to be outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice by the specified deadline.

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

The applicant, a former Superintendent, alleged she was terminated because of her race, ethnic origin, and creed, and for raising concerns about systemic discrimination against Muslims.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed the applicant's request for production of various documents.

Applying the standard of 'arguable relevance', the Tribunal ordered the respondent to produce several categories of documents, including personnel files, communications regarding the termination of another Deputy Superintendent, and employment systems review reports, while denying requests for documents lacking sufficient nexus to the issues in dispute.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking disclosure and production of employment contracts from the respondent prior to the issuance of a Notice of Hearing.

The Tribunal denied the request as premature, noting that under Rule 16 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, parties are not required to exchange arguably relevant documents until 21 days after the Notice of Hearing is issued.

The applicant filed an application under s. 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, directing the applicant to respond by a specified date.

The applicant failed to respond to the NOID.

As a result, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant sought to reactivate his human rights application more than a year after the conclusion of a related Employment Standards Act proceeding.

The Tribunal's rules require a reactivation request within 60 days.

The applicant blamed his former paralegal for the initial delay, but failed to explain why he waited over a year to file the request after learning of the omission.

The Tribunal found no good reason to extend the time limit and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to services on the basis of disability.

The applicant repeatedly failed to comply with Tribunal directions regarding disclosure, witness statements, and attendance at a conference call.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed as an abuse of process.

After the applicant failed to respond to the request or subsequent Tribunal directions, the Tribunal found that the applicant had abandoned the application and dismissed it.

The applicant alleged reprisal after his employment was terminated shortly after he reported sexual harassment complaints made by two of his staff members.

The Tribunal considered whether to consolidate his application with the sexual harassment applications of the two staff members, and whether to order the disclosure of various documents.

The Tribunal declined to consolidate the applications, finding that the applicant's reprisal claim involved different facts and issues than the sexual harassment claims.

The Tribunal also ordered the respondent to provide an explanation and documents regarding the applicant's allegedly deficient sales targets, but denied the requests for the alleged harasser's resume and the internal investigation report at this stage.

The applicants filed human rights applications alleging sexual harassment and reprisal against their employer.

The Tribunal considered whether to consolidate their applications with a third application filed by a former coworker who alleged his employment was terminated for reporting their complaints.

The Tribunal declined to consolidate the applications, finding that the third application involved divergent issues focusing on employment performance and reprisal, whereas the applicants' hearing would focus on whether the sexual harassment occurred.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the application on the basis that it appeared to be outside the Tribunal's power to decide.

The applicant was directed to respond by a specified date but failed to do so.

As a result, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

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

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking particulars of the application, arguing the allegations were framed in general terms.

The applicant did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, ordering the applicant to provide particulars of the allegations, as the application lacked specific facts regarding the circumstances, timing, and individuals involved in the alleged discrimination.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the facts of the application were part of an ongoing union grievance.

The respondent supported deferral, while the applicant did not file submissions.

The Tribunal deferred the application to avoid inconsistent decisions, as the issues in both proceedings overlapped significantly.

The applicant alleged discrimination in housing based on the receipt of public assistance.

The applicant and respondent entered into a tenancy agreement.

When the applicant informed the respondent that rent would be late, the respondent erroneously concluded she was receiving ongoing Ontario Works benefits.

The respondent investigated how this would affect him as a landlord and, dissatisfied with the options, terminated the tenancy agreement.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's perception that the applicant was in receipt of public assistance was a factor in his decision to end the tenancy, violating section 2 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal awarded the applicant $7,500 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, but dismissed claims for out-of-pocket expenses and labour due to insufficient evidence.

The applicant requested to reactivate her human rights application after it was previously deferred pending the outcome of a related grievance process.

The union confirmed the grievance was resolved.

The respondents opposed reactivation, arguing the application should be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal held that the s. 45.1 arguments were relevant to whether the application should be dismissed, not whether it should be actively processed.

Finding the request timely and the grievance concluded, the Tribunal granted the request to reactivate and directed the parties to mediation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging his termination following a physical altercation was discriminatory based on disability.

The respondent requested the application be deferred pending the outcome of an ongoing union grievance dealing with the same subject matter.

The Tribunal granted the deferral, finding it fair, just, and expeditious to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions, noting the applicant could request to reactivate the application after the grievance process concludes.

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

The applicant claimed the WSIB discriminated against him by initially refusing treatment for depression, failing to accommodate his language disability, and finding his depression not compensable.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the applicant's ongoing WSIB proceedings, noting that the WSIB and WSIAT have jurisdiction to apply the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment on the basis of colour and race.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the outcome of an ongoing grievance process dealing with the same facts.

The respondents did not object to the deferral, and the applicant did not file submissions.

The Tribunal deferred the application pursuant to section 45 of the Human Rights Code to avoid concurrent proceedings and the possibility of inconsistent decisions.

During a hearing, the respondents brought a motion to dismiss the portion of the application relating to a January 2009 assault and the subsequent police investigation.

The Tribunal found that even if the applicant's allegations were true, there was no evidence linking the respondents' conduct to the applicant's race or ethnic origin.

The Tribunal dismissed that portion of the application, as well as the reprisal allegations, for failing to establish a prima facie case.

The hearing was scheduled to continue regarding a separate interaction with a specific police officer.

The applicant, a restaurant owner of Somali origin, alleged that a parking enforcement officer targeted him and his patrons by issuing parking tickets and making racist comments.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed because many of the allegations related to events that occurred more than a year before the application was filed.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations relating to the period from 2002 to 2005, finding they were not part of a series of incidents with the later events and that there was no good faith explanation for the delay.

The Tribunal ordered a half-day oral hearing to hear evidence regarding the alleged discriminatory comments made in 2009 and 2010.