HRTO 2012

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging racial and creed profiling by the respondent while he was in the East Detention Centre.

The applicant also filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to defer the application until the end of related criminal proceedings against him.

The respondent took no position on the request.

The Tribunal granted the request and deferred the application, noting that deferral ensures proceedings dealing with the same issues do not run concurrently.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to amend her human rights application to include a request for a non-monetary remedy, specifically reinstatement to an accommodated position.

The respondent did not file a response to the request.

Applying the factors from Wozenilek, the Tribunal allowed the amendment, noting it raised no new facts, was made well in advance of the hearing, and was unopposed.

The applicant requested to reactivate her human rights application after a related grievance proceeding was settled and withdrawn by her union.

The request was unopposed by the respondent and the union.

The Tribunal granted the request to reactivate and ordered a teleconference hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code or as an abuse of process.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that found she was subjected to sexual harassment by her commercial landlord but did not find that the lease ended for Code-related reasons.

The applicant argued the decision conflicted with established case law and that other facts outweighed the public interest in finality.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding the applicant failed to establish any threshold criteria under Rule 26 and was improperly attempting to appeal the decision and increase damages.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment based on colour, ethnic origin, and race.

The applicant later sent correspondence indicating a wish to withdraw the application but failed to copy the respondent as directed.

After a subsequent inquiry from the Tribunal was returned to sender, the Tribunal concluded the applicant had abandoned the application and dismissed it.

The applicant requested a second adjournment of a scheduled hearing because he was out of the country caring for his mother, who had breast cancer.

The respondent opposed the request, noting the applicant's failure to participate in the hearing process to date.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's circumstances warranted an adjournment, despite his failure to provide requested medical evidence, noting communication issues in delivering the previous interim decision.

The hearing was adjourned, and the applicant was directed to provide alternative dates for 2012.

The applicant alleged discrimination with respect to services because of disability after the respondent denied coverage for Dronedarone, the only drug she could take for atrial fibrillation.

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

The Tribunal found that the respondent's Ontario Drug Benefit Program did not fund Dronedarone for anyone in Ontario, based on an expert committee's recommendation.

Because the applicant was not treated differently from others on the basis of a Code-related ground, the Tribunal concluded there was no reasonable prospect of success and dismissed the application.

The applicant sought to re-activate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of concurrent WSIB proceedings regarding his return to work following a workplace injury.

The applicant argued he was denied procedural fairness because he did not receive the full 14 days to respond to the respondents' original deferral request.

The Tribunal considered the request under Rule 14.5 but declined to re-activate the application, finding that proceeding concurrently with the WSIB appeal would create a real risk of contradictory findings regarding whether the proposed return-to-work duties were within the applicant's medical restrictions.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant argued that the Tribunal failed to properly consider her 39 documents proving harassment and rent miscalculation.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was merely attempting to re-argue her case and disagreeing with the original decision.

Finding no new evidence or other factors under Rule 26.5 to justify overturning the decision, the Tribunal denied the request for reconsideration.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to employment and housing on the basis of race, colour, and record of offences by the respondent, Ontario Works.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to point to any evidence linking the respondent's alleged actions to the cited grounds of discrimination.

The application was dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of sex, including sexual harassment.

The respondent failed to file a Response despite being granted an extension and receiving an Interim Decision warning of the consequences of failing to respond.

The Tribunal deemed the respondent to have waived all rights to notice or participation and to have accepted all allegations in the Application.

The applicant was directed to submit additional materials and advise if she wished to make oral submissions.

The applicants filed human rights applications which were deferred pending the conclusion of criminal proceedings.

After the criminal proceedings ended, the applicants failed to follow the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure to either reactivate or formally withdraw their applications.

Despite multiple communications and an interim decision ordering them to clarify their intentions, the applicants failed to comply.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the applications abandoned and dismissed them.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous decision dismissing her human rights application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

She argued there were new facts or evidence regarding her termination and severance entitlements.

The Tribunal found that the alleged new facts were merely reiterations of allegations already considered in the summary hearing.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application which was stayed pending the respondent's bankruptcy proceedings.

After the bankruptcy proposal was accepted, the Tribunal directed the applicant to advise whether he intended to seek leave of the court to lift the stay.

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's correspondence.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed an application under s. 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.

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

The applicant requested to re-activate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending a WSIB appeal regarding his workplace injury and accommodation.

The WSIB Appeals Resolution Officer allowed the appeal in part but returned issues of fitness for work and availability of alternate duties to the WSIB operating area for further enquiry.

The Tribunal denied the request to re-activate, finding that proceeding concurrently with the WSIB's ongoing enquiries could lead to conflicting findings and decisions.

The application remains deferred.

The applicant, an accident benefits analyst, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability, race, colour, place of origin, citizenship, ethnic origin, family status, marital status, and reprisal.

She claimed the respondent failed to accommodate her eye disability by not reducing her workload and requiring her to complete short-term disability forms.

She also alleged racial profiling during a training session and a discriminatory workplace investigation.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the respondent had appropriately accommodated her disability by reducing her workload and allowing breaks, and that the applicant failed to cooperate by refusing to provide requested medical information.

The Tribunal also found no evidence of discrimination or reprisal in the respondent's actions.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination and reprisal, while also having an ongoing Small Claims Court action seeking damages for injury to dignity.

The Tribunal declined to defer the application to the civil proceeding because the respondent took the position that the court lacked jurisdiction due to the applicant's union membership.

However, the Tribunal raised the issue of whether section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code barred the application entirely while the civil action remained active, and directed the parties to provide further written submissions on this jurisdictional issue.

The applicant filed a request for reconsideration of a decision that dismissed his human rights application on the basis of judicial immunity.

The original application alleged that an official of the Ontario Labour Relations Board provided bad faith advice causing him to withdraw his application.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's request for reconsideration merely repeated portions of his original application and expressed disagreement with the decision, without addressing the grounds for reconsideration under the Tribunal's rules.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

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

A summary hearing was scheduled by conference call, and notice was provided to the parties.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.