HRTO 2012

The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination based on creed.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the resolution of a concurrent grievance related to the same facts and issues.

The Tribunal noted its normal approach to defer applications where there is an ongoing grievance under a collective agreement, as grievance arbitrators have the authority to enforce human rights obligations.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process.

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

Following a prior interim decision directing the respondents to file a Response, the respondents failed to do so.

The Tribunal issued this interim decision warning the respondents that failure to file a Response within 14 days could result in the Tribunal proceeding without them, deeming them to have accepted the allegations, and deciding the matter based only on the material before it.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to occupancy of accommodation.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to provide submissions on jurisdictional issues.

The applicant failed to respond by the deadline.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on age and sex, specifically sexual harassment by a patron.

Prior to the hearing, the applicant brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend the remedies sought in the Application.

The respondent did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding it was brought in a timely manner, would not delay proceedings, and would not prejudice the respondent.

The applicant filed an Application for Contravention of Settlement alleging the respondents failed to comply with a previous Tribunal order to pay $1,000.

The Tribunal found that the issue of the breach of settlement had already been finally determined in the previous decision, rendering the Tribunal functus officio.

The Tribunal further noted that enforcement of its orders must be pursued through the Superior Court of Justice pursuant to section 19 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code but failed to attend a scheduled mediation session.

The Tribunal sent multiple letters and emails directing the applicant to advise of her intentions, warning that failure to respond could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant did not respond.

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

The respondents requested that the human rights application be dismissed or deferred under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the applicant had commenced a parallel civil proceeding.

The Tribunal found that the civil proceeding was a negligence claim for a slip and fall, with no overlapping human rights facts or remedies sought.

The Tribunal also denied the respondents' request for early production of the applicant's medical records, finding it premature as the Notice of Hearing had not yet been issued.

The respondents' Request for Order During Proceedings was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sexual harassment and reprisal more than one year after her resignation.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed for delay.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had a good faith explanation for the delay, as she had initially pursued claims with the WSIB and the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, and only filed with the Tribunal after learning the CICB would not address her broader harassment allegations.

The request to dismiss for delay was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal after her employment was terminated.

The respondents sought to dismiss the application on the basis that the applicant had signed a Full and Final Release upon termination.

The applicant argued she signed the release under duress and did not understand its significance.

The Tribunal found no evidence of duress, noting the applicant had the opportunity to read the release and subsequently cashed the settlement cheques.

The Tribunal held that proceeding with the application would be an abuse of process and dismissed it.

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

The Tribunal issued Case Assessment Directions requiring the applicant to file a witness list, witness statements, and documents she intended to rely upon, warning that failure to comply could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to comply with the directions and made no attempt to contact the Tribunal.

Consequently, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of family status after his employment was terminated for staying home to care for his children.

The respondent failed to file a response despite receiving notice and communicating with the Tribunal through its accountant.

The Tribunal deemed the respondent to have accepted all allegations in the application and waived its right to further notice or participation.

The applicant was directed to file further submissions and indicate whether he wished to attend a hearing to determine liability and remedy.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) discriminated against her based on her cognitive disability.

She claimed FSCO failed to intervene when a Designated Assessment Centre (DAC) refused to accommodate her request to have a facilitator present during a medical assessment.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that FSCO's refusal to intervene was based on its reasonable belief that the complaint fell under the jurisdiction of its dispute resolution process, rather than its Automobile Insurance Policy Unit.

The Tribunal concluded that FSCO's policy of intervening in physical accessibility complaints but not in assessment conduct complaints did not constitute constructive discrimination.

The applicant filed an application alleging breach of a settlement agreement.

Prior to the scheduled hearing, the applicant requested an adjournment and that the matter be held in abeyance, as the respondent had begun making scheduled payments toward the settlement amount.

The Tribunal granted the request, cancelled the hearing, and placed the application in abeyance until December 31, 2013, with conditions for reactivation if the respondent failed to complete the payments.

The applicant, a black male of Caribbean origin, alleged that his supervisors discriminated against him based on race, colour, place of origin, and ethnic origin by speaking to him in a demeaning and disrespectful manner on two occasions.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario found that while the supervisors may have been abrupt or disrespectful, the applicant failed to provide direct or circumstantial evidence linking the treatment to a prohibited ground under the Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the respondent university more than one year after the last alleged incident.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed for delay.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to explain the delay, but the applicant failed to provide any submissions on why the application was filed out of time.

Finding no evidence that the delay was incurred in good faith, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

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

The respondents raised preliminary issues, arguing that parts of the application were untimely and that other parts had been appropriately dealt with in prior Ministry of Labour and Small Claims Court proceedings.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations relating to incidents prior to April 26, 2009, finding they were untimely and the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The Tribunal also dismissed the allegations regarding the respondents preventing the applicant from securing new employment, finding they were appropriately dealt with by the settlement of the applicant's 2009 Small Claims Actions.

The remaining allegations regarding accessible services and the banning of the applicant's personal care attendant were allowed to proceed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by his former employer and its representatives.

The respondents raised preliminary issues regarding timeliness, multiple proceedings, and the naming of individual respondents.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations relating to incidents that occurred more than one year prior to the application, finding no good faith explanation for the delay.

The Tribunal also dismissed allegations that had been resolved through a prior Small Claims Court settlement.

The remaining allegations were deferred pending the resolution of a related civil claim to avoid inconsistent decisions.

Finally, the Tribunal removed the individual respondents, finding no compelling reason to proceed against them personally.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the final day of the hearing because her counsel had an important medical appointment scheduled for that day.

The respondent opposed the request, citing previous delays caused by the applicant's counsel in scheduling.

The Tribunal found that the medical appointment constituted exceptional circumstances justifying an adjournment, despite the frustration it would cause the respondent.

The request to adjourn and reschedule the hearing was granted.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and failure to accommodate her disability following two workplace injuries.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed or deferred because the applicant was pursuing a concurrent WSIB appeal regarding her termination.

The Tribunal found that while the WSIB process might address whether the termination was related to her injury, it did not appear to address the separate claim of failure to accommodate to the point of undue hardship.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide particulars of her failure to accommodate claim and the respondent to provide an update on the WSIB appeal before deciding on deferral.

The respondents, the City of Mississauga and Dara Marcoccia, requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates with the applicant's consent, after the applicant's representative withdrew less than a month before the hearing.

The individual respondent, Rohan Abbey, opposed the adjournment.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that the withdrawal of the representative constituted an extraordinary circumstance justifying the delay.

The Tribunal also directed the parties to provide submissions on whether the application should be deferred pending the completion of an ongoing workplace grievance.