HRTO 2012

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment in employment, culminating in termination.

The respondents requested early dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter was appropriately dealt with through a grievance procedure that resulted in Minutes of Settlement and a full and final release.

The applicant claimed the settlement was signed under duress.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the applicant to advise within 14 days whether he wishes to make oral submissions on the dismissal request, failing which the matter will be decided on the written record.

The applicant filed a human rights application but subsequently failed to provide a complete mailing address.

Correspondence and the respondent's Response to Application sent to the applicant's new address were returned to the Tribunal as incomplete.

After the applicant failed to respond to a direction warning that the application may be deemed abandoned, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

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

The respondents failed to file a response by the deadline set in the Notice of Application.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondents that failure to participate could lead to orders against them without their participation, and granted them 10 days to file a response with an explanation for the delay.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, and ethnic origin against his former employer and its Director of Operations.

The respondents sought to add the applicant's union as a respondent, arguing it should be jointly and severally liable.

The Tribunal applied the Smyth test and dismissed the request, finding no allegations that could support a finding that the union violated the Human Rights Code and no compelling reason to add the union as a party.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and race regarding the seizure of his firearms and revocation of his license.

The application was filed beyond the one-year limitation period under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued the delay was in good faith because he only discovered the discriminatory motive during a judicial review hearing.

The Tribunal found that even if the doctrine of discoverability applied, the applicant waited almost another year after the hearing to file his application.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to act with due diligence, the delay was not incurred in good faith under section 34(2), and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application more than one year after her dismissal from employment.

The Tribunal previously found it was not plain and obvious that the delay was not incurred in good faith, but noted the decision was not final.

The respondents subsequently filed a Response arguing the application should be dismissed for delay due to an inadequate explanation and prejudice.

The Tribunal ordered a half-day preliminary hearing to determine the issue of delay.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability regarding the accommodation of a workplace injury.

In her Reply, the applicant raised new allegations regarding a Community Service position and fluctuating shifts.

The respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking to amend its Response to address these new allegations, treating them as an expansion of the Application.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting the hearing was months away, there was no prejudice to the applicant, and dealing with all accommodation issues in one proceeding would avoid multiplicity.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in the denial of health benefits.

The application was previously deferred pending the outcome of related union grievances.

After nearly three years with the grievance arbitration held in abeyance and no clear timeline for its resolution, the applicant requested to reactivate the application.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the lengthy delay and uncertain status of the arbitration meant that the conditions for deferral had not materialized, and reactivation was the most fair, just, and expeditious approach.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment in employment on the basis of race, ancestry, place of origin, and ethnic origin.

Prior to filing their Responses, the respondents requested an order directing the applicant to provide further particulars regarding the allegations.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the application contained sufficient detail about the alleged facts and legal issues to enable the respondents to file a meaningful response, and that no exceptional circumstances justified ordering particulars at this preliminary stage.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex and sexual orientation.

The applicant failed to provide a valid mailing address, failed to comply with disclosure obligations under Rules 16 and 17, and failed to respond to a Case Assessment Direction warning that the application could be dismissed.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment, housing, and services against the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the federal Department of Justice.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intention to Dismiss because the respondents appeared to be federally regulated and the application lacked specific allegations of discrimination.

After reviewing the applicant's submissions, the Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it plain and obvious that the respondents were federally regulated and outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction, and that the applicant failed to describe any specific acts of discrimination.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of disability and reprisal against his former employer and union.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed.

The Tribunal found no reasonable prospect of success for the reprisal allegation, as there was no evidence linking the applicant's dismissal to his prior accommodation requests.

The failure to accommodate allegations were dismissed for delay, as they occurred more than a year before the application was filed and were not part of a series of incidents with the termination.

The application against the union was also dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant filed a human rights application against his employer and his union.

Following a Case Assessment Direction, the applicant requested to withdraw the application against the union and consented to the union participating as an intervenor.

The Tribunal ordered the application withdrawn against the union, amended the employer's name, and granted the union intervenor status.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race and colour.

The applicant's union requested to intervene, which the Tribunal granted as there were no exceptional circumstances.

The Tribunal also noted that both the applicant and respondents failed to comply with Rules 16 and 17 regarding the delivery of witness lists, statements, and documents.

The Tribunal directed the parties to file the required materials within 7 days, warning that failure to do so could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned or the respondents being barred from calling witnesses.

The applicant failed to comply with two Case Assessment Directions requiring her to deliver and file a witness list, witness statements, and documents, and to notify the Tribunal of her intentions regarding the application.

Having failed to comply or communicate with the Tribunal, the application was dismissed as abandoned and the scheduled hearing was cancelled.

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

The respondent requested that the Tribunal dismiss the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the grievance proceeding appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal reactivated the application and ordered a one-day in-person hearing to determine the section 45.1 dismissal request.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment based on record of offences, claiming he was wrongly terminated for failing to complete a rehabilitation program.

The respondent requested early dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter was appropriately dealt with through two last chance agreements containing full and final releases.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the applicant to advise within 14 days whether he wishes to make oral submissions on the dismissal request, failing which the matter will be decided on the written record.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the outcome of an ongoing workplace grievance-arbitration process initiated by the applicant under the Public Service of Ontario Act, 2006.

The respondent supported the deferral, noting the grievances were based on substantially the same facts.

The Tribunal deferred the application to avoid adjudicative duplication and inconsistent decisions, finding considerable factual overlap between the two proceedings.

The applicant filed an application under section 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.

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

The applicant requested to reactivate two consolidated human rights applications after the conclusion of judicial review proceedings and the exhaustion of all appeals, including a refusal of leave by the Supreme Court of Canada.

The respondents did not file submissions.

The Tribunal found it appropriate to reactivate the applications and ordered them reactivated.