HRTO 2012

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging the respondent failed to accommodate his disability-related needs by denying him prescription medications during his incarceration.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed the applicant's requests for an adjournment and for the production of his former cell mates' contact information.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, finding the applicant's failure to contact witnesses and vague scheduling conflict did not constitute extraordinary circumstances.

The Tribunal also denied the production request, finding the cell mates' evidence would not be relevant.

The Tribunal directed the parties to be prepared to address whether the application has a reasonable prospect of success if the applicant fails to call his doctor as a witness.

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

The Tribunal rescheduled a mediation at the respondent's request and directed the applicant to provide her availability for a new date.

The applicant failed to respond to multiple communications from the Tribunal, including a warning that her application would be deemed abandoned if she did not reply.

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

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the resolution of two concurrent grievance arbitrations dealing with the same subject matter.

The applicant opposed deferral due to delay in the grievance process, while the respondent supported it.

The Tribunal deferred the application, noting that the facts and human rights issues were virtually identical and that the grievance process remained active.

A request by the respondent to dismiss the application for being filed out of time was also deferred.

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

The application initially named Manion, Wilkins & Associates Ltd. as a division of Manulife Financial.

Manulife Financial advised that Manion was a third-party administrator and requested the application be deferred pending a civil action.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to clarify the intended respondent.

The applicant confirmed his intention to name Manion as the sole respondent.

The Tribunal amended the style of cause to remove Manulife Financial and directed the parties to file written submissions on whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code given the pending civil action.

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

The Tribunal's correspondence to the applicant was returned as undeliverable, and the telephone number provided was not in service.

The applicant failed to provide updated contact information as required by Rule 1.13 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it pursuant to Rule 5.4.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by an official of the Ontario Labour Relations Board, claiming the official provided bad faith advice that caused him to withdraw his OLRB application.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis of judicial immunity.

Finding that the allegations related to the conduct and rulings of an official in the course of a hearing, the Tribunal concluded it was plain and obvious that the doctrine of judicial immunity applied and dismissed the application.

In an interim decision regarding an application alleging sexual harassment and reprisal, the Tribunal addressed several procedural requests.

The applicant was permitted to amend her requested remedies to include mental distress damages.

The Tribunal ruled that two letters in the respondents' productions were protected by solicitor-client privilege.

Because the applicant put her medical condition in issue by claiming mental distress, the Tribunal ordered her to produce medical documentation from July 2006 to the end of the period for which she sought damages.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the human rights hearing because he had to return to work in the afternoon and could not request additional time off as a new employee.

The respondent opposed the adjournment, arguing prejudice as its witnesses had taken time off work.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, noting that the hearing would have required another day regardless, and ordered the applicant to provide further particulars regarding the alleged discriminatory remarks.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application for delay.

The original decision found that the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period and that the applicant failed to provide a good faith explanation for the entire period of delay.

In his reconsideration request, the applicant reiterated his explanation for the delay up to May 2011 but failed to address the delay between May 2011 and August 2011.

The Tribunal denied the request for reconsideration.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal against her union for failing to file a grievance regarding her termination and failing to advance her WSIB claim in a timely manner.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to allege or provide any basis to suggest that her disability was a factor in the union's behaviour.

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

The respondent failed to file a Response by the deadline set 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 and granted the respondent 10 days to file a Response and explain the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code alleging employment discrimination based on ancestry and disability.

After an unsuccessful mediation, a hearing was scheduled.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the parties to file documents and witness statements or confirm they would not rely on additional evidence.

When neither party responded to the Direction, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned and cancelled the scheduled hearing.

The applicant filed an application alleging a contravention of settlement under the Human Rights Code.

After multiple scheduling issues and the applicant's inability to attend the most recent hearing date due to health reasons, the Tribunal adjourned the matter sine die to allow the parties time to attempt a resolution.

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

A teleconference summary hearing was scheduled, and proper notice was sent to the parties.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing, while counsel for the respondents appeared.

After waiting the customary half hour, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned due to the applicant's failure to attend.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on race and colour, relying on a series of disciplinary incidents.

The respondents argued that several of these incidents were untimely and had already been resolved through the union grievance process.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal held that it would be an abuse of process to allow the applicant to re-litigate incidents of discipline that had been the subject of grievances and subsequently settled between the workplace parties.

The Tribunal excluded evidence regarding the resolved grievances, emphasizing the importance of finality in freely negotiated settlements.

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

A summary hearing was scheduled, and notice was provided to the applicant.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing and did not communicate with the Tribunal to explain the absence.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the application on the basis that the applicant was deemed to have abandoned it.

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

As a related grievance was pending, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer.

The applicant and the union agreed to the deferral, while the respondents did not file a response.

The Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application pending the conclusion of the grievance arbitration process.

Additionally, the Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene in the application, noting its interest in any potential remedy or settlement.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to goods and services because of race and colour by the respondent police service.

The respondent sought early dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance of the application was dealt with through the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD).

The Tribunal directed that the matter be held in abeyance pending the release of leading decisions on the application of section 45.1 to OIPRD complaints.

The applicant objected, but the Tribunal found it would be a poor use of resources to hear submissions before the leading decisions were released.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal based on disability against her employer, her union, and three personal respondents.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed against the union and the personal respondents.

The Tribunal found no reasonable prospect of success against the union, as the assignment of hours was a management prerogative and there was no evidence the union participated in the decision.

The Tribunal also removed the personal respondents, applying the Persaud test, as the corporate respondents accepted full vicarious liability and were capable of remedying any infringement.

In an ongoing expedited hearing regarding alleged discrimination in housing accommodation based on environmental sensitivities, the self-represented applicant sought to call a late witness.

The respondents objected, citing lack of particulars and prejudice.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the witness statement was vague, lacked supporting documentation, and would cause procedural unfairness and prejudice to the respondents by unduly lengthening the hearing and introducing potentially irrelevant similar fact evidence.