HRTO 2012

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

The Tribunal directed a summary hearing by teleconference to determine whether the application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled summary hearing and provided no explanation for her absence.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application due to delay.

The applicant argued that his application should proceed in the interest of justice, citing ongoing harassment and the public interest in holding the respondent school board accountable.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant merely reiterated previous arguments and failed to establish compelling or extraordinary circumstances under Rule 26.5(d) to outweigh the public interest in the finality of decisions.

The applicant alleged discrimination by his housing cooperative based on ethnic origin, creed, family status, and pregnancy, as well as reprisal, following his eviction and reports made to the Children's Aid Society.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations based on ethnic origin, creed, pregnancy, and reprisal, finding no reasonable prospect the applicant could establish a link between the cooperative's actions and the Code grounds.

The allegation of discrimination based on family status regarding the eviction was allowed to continue, subject to a further hearing on whether the application should be dismissed due to a related civil proceeding.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability (multiple sclerosis) after being denied OHIP funding for an angioplasty procedure.

The Tribunal had previously deferred the application pending the outcome of an appeal before the Health Services Appeal and Review Board (HSARB).

Following the conclusion of the HSARB proceeding, which explicitly declined to consider the human rights issues due to the concurrent Tribunal application, the applicant filed a request to proceed.

As the respondent made no submissions, the Tribunal granted the request to proceed and directed the matter to mediation.

The applicant alleged age discrimination after being denied a flight training scholarship restricted to persons aged 16 to 25.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal directed the matter to a one-day hearing to determine if the scholarship qualifies as a special program under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant's request for production of documents regarding the respondent's internal communications about the Application, finding them irrelevant to the central issue, and directed the applicant to clarify whether he intended to pursue additional allegations of discrimination.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination regarding the respondent's policy on retiree medical benefits.

The Tribunal previously deferred the application pending a Divisional Court judicial review of a related policy grievance.

Following the Divisional Court's dismissal of the judicial review, the applicant requested to reactivate the application.

The respondent opposed, seeking dismissal under section 45.1 of the Code.

The Tribunal ordered the application reactivated and scheduled a teleconference to hear submissions on the respondent's request to dismiss.

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

The respondent requested and was granted an extension of time to file a response but failed to do so by the extended deadline.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent of the consequences of failing to respond under Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure and granted the respondent 10 days to file a response along with an explanation for the delay.

The applicant, an 88-year-old volunteer denturist, alleged age discrimination after the respondent terminated his volunteer clinical services.

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

The Tribunal found that while the respondent's communication regarding privacy and insurance concerns was poor, the applicant provided no evidence linking the termination of his volunteer role to his age.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on perceived sexual orientation.

The respondents requested a summary dismissal.

The Tribunal found that the only allegation linked to a Code ground occurred in 2007, well outside the one-year limitation period, and the applicant failed to provide a good faith explanation for the delay.

The remaining allegations of ongoing harassment lacked any nexus to a protected ground.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal regarding the administration of Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) benefits.

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

The Tribunal found that the allegations related to unfairness and errors in the provision of government benefits, rather than discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

As the Tribunal does not have the power to review benefit decisions for correctness absent a Code violation, the application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in the delivery of services based on disability, creed, and age.

A summary hearing was scheduled, but the applicant failed to attend.

The Tribunal had previously denied the applicant's request for an adjournment.

Given the applicant's failure to appear despite receiving proper notice, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The corporate respondent brought a Request for Order During Proceedings to remove four personal respondents from a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment.

The Tribunal applied the Persaud factors and found that the corporate respondent accepted potential liability for the personal respondents' actions, could respond to and remedy the complaints, and there was no compelling reason to continue proceedings against the individuals.

The request was granted and the four personal respondents were removed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by the respondent hospital.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success and whether the applicant should be declared a vexatious litigant.

The Tribunal found that the discrimination allegation pertained to the conduct of opposing counsel in another proceeding, which falls outside the scope of services under the Code.

The reprisal allegations lacked any reasonable prospect of proving an intention to retaliate.

Given the applicant's history of filing multiple meritless and untimely applications against the respondent, the Tribunal dismissed the application and declared the applicant a vexatious litigant, prohibiting further applications against the respondent without leave.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding alleging pregnancy discrimination requested an order to amend her Application to include a request for $15,000 in general damages and public interest remedies.

The respondent did not file a response to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the amendment would not delay the proceedings or prejudice the respondent, as the new remedies were reasonably connected to the original allegations.

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

The applicant also had an ongoing termination grievance filed by his union based on the same facts.

The respondents and the intervening union requested that the application be deferred pending the outcome of the grievance process.

The Tribunal found significant overlap between the application and the grievance and deferred the application to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent findings.

The applicant alleged that the respondent legal clinic discriminated against her on the basis of disability when it declined to represent her in an appeal before the Social Benefits Tribunal.

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

The Tribunal found no evidence to suggest that the applicant's disability was a factor in the clinic's decision not to represent her, which was based on its assessment of the merits of her appeal and her failure to provide requested information.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application which was deferred pending the completion of a grievance arbitration.

Following the dismissal of his grievance, the applicant failed to request the re-activation of his application within the 60-day time limit prescribed by Rule 14.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, waiting approximately 13 months to do so.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not provide a good reason for the delay and that the respondent would suffer prejudice due to the passage of time.

The request to re-activate was denied and the application was dismissed.

The applicant requested that the scheduled hearing be moved from Thunder Bay to Kenora, citing financial constraints and travel expenses.

The respondent opposed the change of venue.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting its standard practice of holding hearings in designated regional centres closest to the alleged discrimination.

The Tribunal found that financial considerations alone do not constitute an 'other need' under its Practice Direction to justify changing the venue outside a regional centre, especially when opposed by the other party.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment on the basis of disability following her return from medical leave.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code or deferred pending the outcome of related union grievances.

The Tribunal granted the union intervenor status, denied the request to dismiss as no other proceeding had yet dealt with the substance of the application, and ordered the parties to provide further information regarding the status of the grievances before deciding on deferral.

In an interim decision regarding a human rights application, the respondents objected to the inclusion of evidence concerning a 2004 refusal of 'exceptional case status' in the first phase of a bifurcated hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the objection, confirming that the allegation of discrimination in the promotion process would be heard in the first phase, as no timeliness objection had been raised earlier.