HRTO 2012

The applicant requested an order to defer her human rights application alleging sexual harassment and solicitation pending the completion of a related criminal trial in which she is the accused and one of the respondents is a key Crown witness.

The respondent did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal granted the deferral to prevent concurrent proceedings dealing with the same issues and avoid inconsistent decisions.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

The Tribunal sought submissions on whether the application should be deferred due to a concurrent Small Claims Court action scheduled for trial.

Both parties agreed to the deferral to avoid inconsistent decisions.

The Tribunal ordered the application deferred pending the conclusion of the Small Claims Court action.

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

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed or deferred pending the conclusion of a concurrent union grievance process.

The applicant's union also requested intervenor status.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene and ordered the deferral of the application, finding that the concurrent grievance dealt with the same facts and issues, making deferral the most fair and efficient way to proceed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of disability, claiming he was terminated after sustaining injuries.

The respondent requested early dismissal under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, arguing the application was barred by a civil proceeding recently commenced by the applicant.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's civil action for wrongful dismissal sought damages arising out of the same alleged discrimination.

As the remedies sought in the civil claim included remedies with respect to the infringement of Code rights, the Tribunal dismissed the application to prevent duplicative litigation.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability because the respondent's short-term disability carrier required medical forms to be signed by a physician rather than a chiropractor.

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

The Tribunal found that the 'physician only rule' did not constitute discrimination under the Code, as the applicant did not show differential treatment compared to others entitled to the same benefits.

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

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application following a summary hearing.

The applicant argued there was new evidence and a conflict with established case law, but failed to provide details of the new evidence or identify any conflicting jurisprudence.

The Tribunal found no compelling or extraordinary circumstances to exercise its discretion to reconsider the decision.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario amended its previous order in Martel v. Ontario (Community and Social Services), 2012 HRTO 735, on consent of all parties.

The amendment delays the respondent's obligation to provide retroactive and ongoing special diet allowances for chronic hepatitis C until 60 days after the release of the Divisional Court's decision on the application for judicial review, provided the respondent is unsuccessful.

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

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide her intentions regarding the application, but she failed to respond.

After a subsequent warning that the file would be closed if she did not reply, the applicant again failed to communicate with the Tribunal.

The application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

The respondent requested an early dismissal of the human rights application, arguing that it lacked facts to support a Code violation and that the matter had been appropriately dealt with in an Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) proceeding regarding health and safety.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the allegations could potentially establish a Code violation if proven, and noting that the OLRB proceeding was withdrawn before the issues were addressed.

The Tribunal directed the matter to a one-day hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on family status.

The union representing the applicant's bargaining unit requested to intervene to address remedial issues affecting the collective agreement and its members' rights.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene, noting its general practice of granting intervention status to a union representing the applicant's bargaining unit absent exceptional circumstances.

The applicant filed a human rights application which was deferred pending the conclusion of ongoing grievance proceedings.

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

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's correspondence by regular mail and email.

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

The respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking an order to compel the applicant to produce all arguably relevant documents in accordance with Rule 16.1 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting the importance of disclosure for a fair and timely hearing.

The applicant was ordered to comply within 7 days, failing which the Application could be dismissed as abandoned or the applicant could be barred from calling witnesses.

The applicant failed to comply with Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, which require the delivery and filing of a witness list, witness statements, and documents at least 45 days prior to the hearing.

After being warned in a Case Assessment Direction that the application could be dismissed as abandoned if the documents were not filed within seven days, the applicant failed to file the documents or communicate with the Tribunal.

The application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of sex and sexual solicitation after the personal respondent, her employer, sexually assaulted her.

The personal respondent was previously convicted of sexual assault for the same incident, and the Tribunal accepted those findings of fact.

The Tribunal found the conduct constituted sexual harassment and solicitation under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant was awarded $18,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and $11,930 for lost wages, having reasonably mitigated her damages.

The corporate respondent was also ordered to develop a sexual harassment policy.

The applicant filed an application alleging contravention of a settlement under section 45.9(3) of the Human Rights Code.

A summary hearing was scheduled to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing despite receiving proper notice and exchanging emails with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant, a Ph.D. candidate with bipolar affective disorder, alleged that the respondent university failed to accommodate his disability and discriminated against him by terminating his employment and cancelling his registration.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was not an employee at the material times.

The Tribunal further held that the cancellation of his registration was due to his failure to disclose his previous academic history, a bona fide reason unrelated to his disability.

Finally, the Tribunal dismissed the failure to accommodate claim, finding that the applicant had not requested accommodation, already had a flexible schedule, and failed to cooperate in the accommodation process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and ethnic origin after her vehicle was ticketed and towed.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application against the Toronto Police Services Board had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found no reasonable prospect that the applicant could establish the decision to tow her car was discriminatory, as the applicable by-law does not exempt vehicles with disabled parking permits from being towed when impeding traffic, and there was no evidence linking the officer's actions to her ethnic origin.

The application against the Police Services Board was dismissed.

The applicant was directed to advise the Tribunal on how she intends to proceed against the towing company, which is in receivership.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code alleging discrimination in the termination of his employment.

The applicant's union had concurrently filed a grievance regarding the same termination.

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

The applicant opposed deferral due to anticipated delays, while the respondents supported it.

The Tribunal deferred the application, noting that the facts and issues overlapped significantly and that grievance arbitrators have the responsibility to enforce human rights obligations, making deferral appropriate to avoid inconsistent decisions.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, which was deferred pending the conclusion of ongoing grievance proceedings.

The Tribunal subsequently requested an update on the status of the grievance proceedings and warned that failure to respond could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

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

Consequently, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and sex, culminating in her dismissal.

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

The applicant submitted that her dismissal was the last in a series of discriminatory incidents related to her tenure application.

The Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal directed that the application be served on the respondents, leaving the final determination on delay to be addressed later if raised.