HRTO 2012

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intention to Dismiss on the basis that the respondents appeared to be federally regulated.

The respondents submitted that their transportation and warehousing operations are fully integrated and extend beyond provincial borders, bringing them under federal jurisdiction pursuant to s. 92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The applicant made no submissions on the issue.

The Tribunal found that the organizational respondents are federally regulated companies and dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her application alleging discrimination on the basis of race, colour, or place of origin in her employment termination.

The applicant argued that the adjudicator misunderstood evidence, preferred the respondents' evidence, and incorrectly named the corporate respondent.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant was attempting to re-argue her case and had not presented any new facts or evidence that would satisfy the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 25.5.

The respondent company requested reconsideration of a decision granting the application, arguing it did not receive notice of the hearing.

The Tribunal accepted that the respondent did not receive the Notice of Hearing, given its prior compliance and participation in the process.

The request for reconsideration was granted and a new hearing on the merits was ordered.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on colour and place of origin.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application on its own initiative, noting concurrent grievance arbitration and small claims court proceedings involving similar issues.

The applicant did not provide submissions opposing deferral.

The Tribunal deferred 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 against the organizational respondent and two personal respondents.

One personal respondent failed to file a response by the deadline.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the personal respondent to file a response within 10 days, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice and deem the respondent to have accepted the allegations.

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

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application was dealt with by an internal university appeal.

The respondents also requested the removal of individual respondents, to which the applicant consented.

The Tribunal ordered the removal of the individual respondents and scheduled a teleconference hearing to determine the s. 45.1 dismissal request.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability (PTSD) after being denied entry to events sponsored by the corporate respondent.

The respondents claimed the applicant was barred due to previous disruptive behaviour.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal denied the applicant's request for the adjudicator to recuse himself for bias.

The Tribunal also declined to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success at the summary hearing stage, finding that oral evidence was required to resolve the competing factual accounts regarding the reasons for the applicant's exclusion.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking the production of documents relating to job competitions prior to June 2008.

The respondent opposed the request, arguing it should not be put to the time and expense of producing over 2000 documents and that the allegations should be dismissed.

The Tribunal noted that the respondent's request to dismiss the allegations had already been denied in a previous interim decision.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to disclose documents arguably relevant to the job competitions between 1991 and 2006.

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

The respondent failed to file a Response by the deadline set out in the Notice of Application.

The Tribunal issued an Interim Decision warning the respondent of the consequences of failing to participate under Rule 5.5 of the Rules of Procedure.

The respondent was granted a final 10 days to file a Response along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sex discrimination and harassment based on interactions during a meeting.

The applicant had previously filed a grievance regarding the same incident.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the resolution of the grievance.

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

The Tribunal deferred the application, noting that grievance arbitrators have the power and responsibility to enforce human rights obligations, and deferral avoids concurrent proceedings on the same facts.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability when the respondent hospital required his wife to work night shifts upon returning from disability leave.

The applicant also named the hospital's LTD insurer (Manulife) and a disability management company (Acclaim) as respondents.

Manulife and Acclaim requested to be removed as parties.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that neither Manulife nor Acclaim had the power to control the claimant's terms of employment or accommodate her disability-related needs in the workplace.

The Tribunal also declined to bifurcate the hearing on liability and remedy.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous decision that dismissed his human rights application against St. Stephen's Community House.

The original application alleged discrimination and reprisal related to the respondent's 'good neighbour' policy.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet the threshold criteria for reconsideration under the Human Rights Code and the Tribunal's Rules, as he did not present new determinative facts, demonstrate a conflict with established jurisprudence, or show other factors outweighing the public interest in finality.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of disability and reprisal.

On the request of both parties, the application was withdrawn with prejudice and the Tribunal's file was closed pursuant to section 45.9(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging disability discrimination against the Attorney General of Ontario for failing to provide a fresh and complete transcript of his 2001 criminal trial.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application was filed almost 11 years after the trial, well beyond the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to demonstrate that the delay was incurred in good faith, noting that his mental health disability did not preclude him from actively pursuing his rights in other forums during the delay period.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed an application under section 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.

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

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

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the application because 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 respondent requested that the human rights application be dismissed under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the applicant had commenced a civil proceeding concerning the same events.

The Tribunal found that because the civil action did not specifically seek damages under the Code, section 34(11) did not bar the application.

However, as the factual allegations were the same, the Tribunal deferred further consideration of the application pending the conclusion of the civil proceeding.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging her employment was terminated because she was pregnant.

She brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings to add the Director of Operations as an individual respondent, alleging he made the decision to terminate her.

The Tribunal applied the Smyth and Persaud factors and found that while a finding of discrimination could be made against the individual, the corporate respondent took the position that he was acting within his mandated responsibilities.

The Tribunal concluded it was not necessary for the fair, just and expeditious adjudication of the application to add the individual respondent and denied the request.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination.

The Tribunal previously deferred the application pending the resolution of the applicant's appeal of an Ontario Review Board decision to the Court of Appeal.

The applicant filed a response to the deferral decision, which the Tribunal interpreted as a potential request for reconsideration.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that an interim decision deferring an application is not a final decision and therefore cannot be reconsidered under the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant alleged discrimination with respect to the occupancy of accommodation because of disability and receipt of social assistance.

The applicant sought to amend his application to include monetary compensation for relocation costs, which the Tribunal granted on consent.

The Tribunal then considered whether to defer the application pending the resolution of concurrent proceedings before the Landlord and Tenant Board concerning mould in the applicant's apartment.

Finding a strong likelihood of duplication and inconsistent findings of fact, the Tribunal deferred the application.