HRTO 2012

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

The applicant also commenced a civil action based on the same facts, claiming damages for wrongful dismissal, and requested that the Tribunal defer the application until the court action is completed.

As the respondent did not object, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the civil proceeding.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent, which subsequently made an assignment in bankruptcy.

After the applicant failed to provide submissions on whether the application could proceed despite the bankruptcy stay, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant requested reconsideration, claiming she had not received the Tribunal's directions.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide submissions on why the application could proceed given the bankruptcy.

When the applicant again failed to provide submissions, the Tribunal found the Request for Reconsideration to be abandoned.

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

After the respondents filed a response, the applicant failed to file a reply, failed to provide alternate dates for mediation, and failed to respond to a Tribunal direction warning that her application may be deemed abandoned.

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

The applicant brought a Request for an Order During Proceeding for the production of an internal adjudicator's notes regarding other students investigated in the same incident.

The respondent opposed production on the basis of privacy and relevance.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's request was based on an allegation of differential treatment during the investigation, which was not pleaded in his Application.

As the documents were not arguably relevant to the issues raised in the pleadings, the request for production was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability when the respondent hospital refused to accommodate her work restrictions.

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

The Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application pending the conclusion of the grievance, noting that it generally defers applications where there is an ongoing grievance based on the same facts and issues to avoid concurrent proceedings.

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

The applicant had been off work on long-term disability for approximately ten years.

He alleged discrimination related to the employer's purported sponsorship of a Gay Pride parade, failure to accommodate his return to work, and termination of his employment.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the employer's sponsorship of an event did not constitute discrimination in services or employment, and that the employer did not fail to accommodate the applicant given his admission that he was incapable of returning to work.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to be filed outside the time limits.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant had also commenced a small claims court action against the respondents based on the identical facts.

Despite the applicant's objections, the Tribunal deferred consideration of the application pending the conclusion of the small claims court proceeding to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the police based on perceived mental disability, race, and other grounds, as well as reprisal, regarding the investigation of his complaints of criminal harassment.

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

The Tribunal denied the applicant's request for anonymity, citing the open justice principle.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect that the applicant could prove the police investigation was tainted by discrimination or that the officers' actions constituted a reprisal under the Code.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the hearing because its main witness could not attend due to her father being extremely ill and close to death.

The applicant opposed the request, noting the hearing had already been rescheduled and he had booked time off work.

The Tribunal found the witness's situation constituted an extraordinary circumstance justifying an adjournment under its Practice Direction.

The request to adjourn and reschedule the hearing was granted.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of disability, claiming harassment during disability leave and failure to accommodate.

The respondent requested deferral of the application pending the outcome of the applicant's WSIB appeal regarding initial entitlement to benefits.

The Tribunal denied the deferral request, finding that the WSIB appeal focused on causation of the injury, while the human rights application focused on alleged discrimination and failure to accommodate, meaning the subject matters were distinct.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination by the Ontario Provincial Police on various grounds.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application failed to identify any specific act of discrimination committed by the respondent.

After reviewing the applicant's written submissions, which also failed to describe any incident involving the respondent, the Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of family status and marital status.

The applicant and the respondent both requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the application pending the outcome of an ongoing grievance arbitration process arising from the same facts.

The Tribunal granted the request and deferred the application, noting its general practice to defer when there is an ongoing grievance under a collective agreement based on the same facts and issues.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability and creed.

The respondent failed to file a Response within the required timeframe, despite requesting and being granted an extension.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondent to file a Response within 7 days, along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice to the respondent.

Four organizations sought leave to intervene on the issue of whether the Tribunal should dismiss the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The requests were unopposed and deemed appropriate.

The Tribunal granted leave to intervene and directed the Registrar to schedule a teleconference to address evidence and the scope of intervention.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability, which was previously deferred pending the conclusion of a grievance arbitration.

Following the conclusion of the arbitration, the applicant requested to re-activate the application.

The respondent opposed the request and sought early dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance was dealt with in the arbitration.

The Tribunal granted the request to re-activate and directed that a telephone hearing be scheduled to hear oral submissions on the section 45.1 dismissal request, noting that the applicant had not waived her right to make oral submissions.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of family status, claiming he was terminated because his brother-in-law resigned from the respondent the week prior.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide submissions on jurisdiction, as the Code defines family status as a parent and child relationship.

The applicant failed to provide submissions.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the relationship between an individual and their brother-in-law does not fall within the statutory definition of family status.

The individual respondent requested that the adjudicator recuse himself on the basis of a reasonable apprehension of bias, arguing that the adjudicator's prior ruling granting intervenor status to Justicia for Migrant Workers in the same matter tainted his impartiality.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, holding that making preliminary or case management rulings in advance of a final decision is a fundamental part of active adjudication and does not create a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The applicants filed human rights applications alleging discrimination by a school principal and a daycare executive director.

They subsequently filed multiple requests to add a total of 91 additional individual respondents, including police officers, Children's Aid Society workers, and a journalist.

The Tribunal denied the requests, finding that the applicants failed to provide reasons for adding the individuals, failed to deliver the requests to the proposed respondents, and failed to provide contact information as required by the Tribunal's rules.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to goods and services because of disability and receipt of public assistance.

At the scheduled hearing, the applicant was unprepared and had not met pre-hearing disclosure obligations, leading to an adjournment.

The Tribunal subsequently issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to file the required materials within 7 days, failing which the application may be dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond or comply.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.