HRTO 2012

The Tribunal previously deferred the human rights applications pending the conclusion of criminal proceedings.

After the criminal proceedings ended, the applicant advised that the parties had resolved their differences but failed to file the required forms to withdraw or settle the applications.

Despite repeated directions from the Tribunal to comply with Rules 14.3 and 14.4 to reactivate or close the files, the applicants failed to do so.

The Tribunal ordered the applicants to confirm their intentions and file the necessary documentation within 7 days, failing which the applications would be dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application after she abandoned the summary hearing by walking out.

The applicant alleged the Vice-chair was biased, unprofessional, and that she was disconnected from the teleconference.

The Tribunal found no evidence of bias or unprofessional conduct, noting the applicant's lawyer acted inappropriately.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant intentionally left the hearing and failed to establish any grounds under Rule 26.5 to justify reconsideration.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of place of origin against a law firm operating in British Columbia.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the alleged events took place outside of Ontario.

The Tribunal found that it lacks jurisdiction over the matter as the Human Rights Code is provincial legislation limited to acts committed within Ontario.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested a last-minute adjournment of a scheduled two-day hearing on consent, stating the parties had reached a settlement in principle and needed time to complete paperwork.

The Tribunal partially granted the request, adjourning the hearing only until the afternoon of the first scheduled day.

The Tribunal noted its policy against adjourning hearings for settlement discussions absent exceptional circumstances.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal on the grounds of sex and age, related to pay equity concerns.

She had previously filed a complaint with the Pay Equity Commission.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the resolution of the pay equity complaint.

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

The Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application to avoid concurrent proceedings, inconsistent findings, and potential double recovery, as the matters significantly overlapped.

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

He argued that he had not withdrawn certain allegations regarding job competitions and sought to introduce new facts.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant had clearly abandoned the other allegations at the hearing and that the purportedly new facts were available to him at that time.

The Tribunal concluded that the request was an improper attempt to repair deficiencies in his case and did not meet the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5(a).

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, sexual harassment, and reprisal.

The respondents requested to defer the application pending the outcome of an ongoing grievance arbitration that dealt with the failure to accommodate the applicant's disability.

The applicant consented to the deferral.

The Tribunal granted the request to defer the application to avoid inconsistent decisions, noting the significant overlap between the facts and issues in the application and the grievance.

The respondent school board requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing day because its representative required accommodation for family status reasons and had to be out of the country.

The applicant consented conditionally on an additional hearing day being scheduled promptly.

Despite the lengthy history of the matter, the Tribunal granted the adjournment to accommodate the representative's Code-related needs and directed the parties to provide availability for two further hearing days to complete the proceeding.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the hearing for final closing submissions because the articling student who had carriage of the file left the firm and no other lawyers were available.

The respondent objected, arguing there were no exceptional circumstances.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that the applicant had been diligent in retaining legal representation and should not be prejudiced by his representative's departure from the firm.

The applicant requested to reactivate two deferred human rights applications following the conclusion of proceedings before the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB).

The respondents objected, arguing the substance of the applications had been addressed in the other proceeding.

The Tribunal granted the request to reactivate, finding the other proceeding had concluded, but directed that a preliminary hearing be scheduled to determine whether the applications should be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

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

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation session and did not communicate with the Tribunal to explain the absence.

After the Tribunal issued a letter warning that failure to respond might result in the application being deemed abandoned, the applicant did not respond.

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

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

The applicant repeatedly failed to comply with pre-hearing disclosure obligations despite multiple directions from the Tribunal.

When the applicant failed to appear at the scheduled hearing without explanation, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability and association after being denied a Sessional Adjunct Instructor position at the respondent university.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had a learning disability, but there was insufficient evidence that the hiring committee was aware of it.

The Tribunal rejected the traditional three-step circumstantial evidence test in favour of a one-step test, ultimately finding that the respondent provided credible, non-discriminatory reasons for hiring another candidate who was more qualified.

The allegations of discrimination by association and reprisal were also dismissed.

The applicant, an occasional International Language Instructor, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on race and disability.

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

The applicant conceded that race was not a factor in his treatment.

Regarding disability, the Tribunal found that allegations relating to events in 1995 were out of time, and there was no reasonable prospect of proving that a recent reduction in work assignments was due to a perceived disability, as the respondent provided a full non-discriminatory explanation.

The application was dismissed.

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

The Tribunal notified the applicant that the application was incomplete and requested additional information and submissions on jurisdiction, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal.

The applicant failed to respond by the deadline.

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

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

A Notice of Summary Hearing was issued and delivered to the applicant's representative.

Neither the applicant nor his representative appeared at the scheduled telephone conference hearing.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had notice of the hearing and dismissed the application on the basis that it was deemed abandoned.

The applicant sought to withdraw his human rights application the evening before a scheduled mediation.

The respondent objected to an unconditional withdrawal, requesting that the application be dismissed or withdrawn on the condition that it not be reinstituted.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to withdraw without conditions, noting that if the applicant attempts to re-file the same allegations, the respondent may raise its objections at that time.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, sex, association, and reprisal.

The Tribunal issued an Interim Decision and a Case Assessment Direction ordering the applicant to provide particulars, a witness list, and documents.

The applicant failed to comply with these orders and directions, and failed to advise the Tribunal of his intentions regarding the application.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had abandoned the application and dismissed it.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer under Rule 14.2 due to a pending grievance.

Both parties submitted that deferral was inappropriate because the subject matter of the respondent's WSIB appeal pre-dated and differed from the incidents in the application.

The Tribunal agreed, declined to defer the application, and directed the matter to proceed to mediation.

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

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because the applicant had already initiated concurrent grievance arbitration proceedings dealing with the same facts and issues.

The Tribunal found that deferral was warranted to avoid concurrent proceedings and the possibility of inconsistent decisions, and deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance arbitration.