HRTO 2012

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to goods, services, and facilities because of disability.

A summary hearing was scheduled, but the applicant failed to attend.

After waiting the customary 30 minutes and confirming that notice was properly sent, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming she was dismissed in 2010 without notice or severance due to her right hand restrictions.

The application was filed more than two years after the last alleged incident.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for delay.

The applicant argued the delay was justified because she was waiting for the respondent to address her concerns and provide compensation.

The Tribunal found that attempting to seek redress elsewhere does not justify delay and that the applicant failed to meet the onus of showing the delay was incurred in good faith under section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding alleging age and gender discrimination in employment filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking extensive production of documents from the respondents.

The Tribunal reviewed the nine categories of requested documents, which included student evaluations, resumes of other faculty members, and hiring policies.

The Tribunal granted the request for documents regarding hiring policies, mandatory use of student evaluations, and a specific apology email, but denied or deferred the requests for student evaluations, faculty resumes, and faculty demographic information on the basis of relevance and proportionality.

The applicant, a person with a physical disability requiring a wheelchair, alleged that the respondent municipality discriminated against him in the provision of services by failing to clear the snow windrow left at the bottom of his driveway by municipal snowplows.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not experience discrimination, as he was unable to clear his entire private driveway due to his disability and had to hire a contractor regardless of whether the municipality cleared the windrow, meaning no additional burden was imposed.

The Tribunal further held that, even if discrimination had been established, requiring the municipality to clear windrows for all residents with disabilities would impose an undue hardship due to the significant financial cost relative to the municipality's budget.

The applicants filed human rights applications which were deferred pending the conclusion of related Landlord and Tenant Board proceedings.

The Tribunal subsequently wrote to the applicants requesting an update on the status of the board proceedings and warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal.

The applicants failed to respond to the Tribunal's inquiry.

Consequently, the applications were deemed abandoned and dismissed.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment based on ethnic origin, disability, family status, and reprisal.

At a hearing, the Tribunal issued a consent order adding Canada Bread Company Limited as a respondent to the proceeding and amending the style of cause accordingly.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination on the basis of disability against his former employer and union.

The Tribunal directed a summary hearing regarding the union, after which the applicant withdrew the application against the union.

The respondent employer requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application on the basis of delay and having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal granted the request and directed a summary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed.

The applicant sought to amend his human rights application to add allegations of failure to accommodate and reprisal, and requested further documentary disclosure from the respondents.

The respondents consented to some amendments but objected to others, arguing they would require a new hearing date.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, finding that the new allegations flowed from the original complaint and that hearing all matters together would be efficient.

The Tribunal also ordered the respondents to disclose requested documents relevant to the applicant's claim that he had alerted them to his disability-related difficulties prior to his leave.

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

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application had been appropriately dealt with in a prior civil proceeding for wrongful dismissal.

The Tribunal found that the civil court had already made findings regarding the applicant's termination and competency, and dismissed those portions of the application to prevent relitigation.

However, the Tribunal allowed the application to proceed regarding allegations of discriminatory comments and a poisoned work environment, as these were not raised or considered in the civil action.

The applicant, a nursing student, alleged discrimination based on race, colour, ancestry, and place of origin against the university and a supervisor.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine if certain allegations were out of time and whether a student association report on racism was admissible.

The Tribunal ruled that allegations regarding incidents prior to September 2009 were out of time and that the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The Tribunal also refused to admit the report as evidence of systemic discrimination, finding it to be unreliable hearsay with low probative value.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, alleging that a Vice-Chair discriminated against him during a previous adjudication by making rulings inconsistent with an earlier preliminary ruling.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the application, holding that the doctrine of judicial immunity shields adjudicators and the Tribunal from human rights claims based on actions taken in their adjudicative capacity.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal regarding his application for funding under the Second Career program.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the reprisal allegation had no reasonable prospect of success as there was no evidence of retaliatory intent in the respondent's requests for information.

However, the Tribunal allowed the allegation regarding the failure to accommodate the applicant's need for surgery to proceed to a full hearing, as credibility issues could not be resolved summarily.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to add an employee of the corporate respondent as an individual respondent to her human rights application.

The Tribunal applied the principles from Sigrist and Carson v. London District Catholic School Board, noting that adding personal respondents is discouraged where the corporate respondent is deemed liable and capable of remedying the alleged infringement.

Finding no compelling juridical reason to add the individual, the Tribunal denied the request.

In an interim decision regarding a human rights application alleging sex discrimination and reprisal, the Tribunal addressed several preliminary requests.

The union's unopposed request to intervene was granted.

The applicant's request to add two individual respondents was denied, as the corporate respondent accepted liability and no compelling reason existed to add them.

The respondents' request to remove the individual respondent Kevin Cochrane was also denied, as he was a central figure in the allegations and a remedial order against him was possible.

The Tribunal also modified the parties' disclosure obligations.

The applicant in a human rights complaint alleging employment discrimination sought to amend her Application through three separate requests.

The Tribunal granted the first request to add the ground of family status and further disability allegations, as it was made early with no prejudice to the respondent.

The Tribunal denied the second request to add marital status and association grounds because the applicant failed to link them to any allegations.

The third request, which sought to add extensive new allegations involving a previous employer and older incidents, was denied due to significant unexplained delay and the resulting unfair expansion of the Application's scope.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

Prior to mediation, the respondent filed for bankruptcy, triggering a stay of proceedings.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to advise within one year whether she had lifted the stay or taken steps to proceed.

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's direction and subsequent inquiries.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment after being terminated.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting the application failed to identify specific acts of discrimination or explain how the alleged reprisal related to the assertion of human rights under the Code.

The applicant's allegations of reprisal stemmed from his refusal to support a personal respondent's leadership application, not from claiming a Code right.

The Tribunal found it plain and obvious that the application was outside its jurisdiction and dismissed it.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application as abandoned after he failed to attend a scheduled summary hearing.

The applicant argued that the respondent failed to provide requested information and that the Tribunal's decision conflicted with case law.

The Tribunal denied the reconsideration request, finding that the applicant provided no new determinative evidence, failed to explain his absence from the hearing, and did not establish any of the threshold criteria under Rule 26.5 to justify reconsideration.

The applicant, who required hip replacement surgery, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability after his employment was terminated five days before his scheduled surgery.

The respondents claimed the termination was strictly due to financial restructuring.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's pending disability-related absence was a factor in the decision to terminate his employment, constituting discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

The corporate respondent was ordered to pay $10,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The applicant, a teacher, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability after her employment was terminated pursuant to a long-term disability guideline negotiated between the school board and the union.

The respondents sought to dismiss the application for delay, as it was filed more than four years after the termination.

The Tribunal found that the termination was the last incident of alleged discrimination and rejected the applicant's argument that the discrimination was ongoing.

The Tribunal also found that the delay was not incurred in good faith, as the applicant's efforts to pursue her rights through the union grievance process did not justify the delay.

The application was dismissed as untimely.