HRTO 2012

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether the applicant's human rights application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of race, colour, place of origin, and ethnic origin after being dismissed from the respondent's program.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had a reasonable prospect of proving her case, as she intended to call witnesses and present evidence of differential treatment compared to White students.

The Tribunal concluded that the application should proceed to a merits hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application against Bagel World alleging discrimination in services.

The franchisor, Bagel World, sought clarification on the proper respondent, noting the location was operated by a franchisee that had ceased operations.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the franchisor to provide contact information for the owner and file a Response.

When the franchisor failed to file a Response, the Tribunal issued an interim decision ordering the franchisor to file a Response within 35 days and requiring the applicant to provide accurate contact information for any other respondents she intends to proceed against.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal on the basis of disability, with the last incident occurring over three years prior.

The respondents requested dismissal due to delay.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish that the delay was incurred in good faith under section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant's ignorance of the law, pursuit of other proceedings, and medical condition did not adequately explain the delay.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal scheduled the application for a hearing and directed the parties to file documents, witness lists, and summaries of evidence.

The applicant failed to comply with this direction and a subsequent Case Assessment Direction warning that the application could be dismissed as abandoned.

Due to the applicant's failure to comply with her obligations under the Tribunal's rules, the application was dismissed as abandoned and the hearing was cancelled.

The applicant sought to amend her human rights application to add claims for lost wages and legal costs.

The respondent consented to the lost wages amendment but opposed the legal costs amendment, arguing the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to award costs.

The Tribunal granted both amendments, noting that while it has consistently held it lacks jurisdiction to award costs, allowing the amendment at this stage causes no prejudice to the respondent and permits the applicant to argue the point at the hearing.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment based on family status and sexual orientation.

The applicant failed to comply with the Tribunal's Rules 16 and 17 regarding the delivery of witness lists, witness statements, and documents.

After failing to respond to a Case Assessment Direction warning that the application could be dismissed as abandoned, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment and named an individual vice-president as the sole respondent.

The applicant subsequently filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to add the corporate employer, St. Clair College, as a respondent.

The Tribunal granted the request to add the corporate employer, finding it was in the best position to respond to the allegations regarding the applicant's employment and termination.

Applying the principles from Sigrist and Carson, the Tribunal also removed the individual respondent, as there was no compelling reason to maintain the application against him personally given the corporate respondent's vicarious liability.

The individual respondent brought a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking to be removed as a party to the human rights application.

The applicant alleged that the individual respondent made a complaint to management that formed part of the basis for the applicant's dismissal, constituting a reprisal.

The Tribunal applied the Persaud factors and found that the individual respondent was a minor player, her actions were in the course of employment for which the corporate respondent would be liable, and it was not necessary to involve her for a fair and expeditious resolution.

The request was granted and the individual respondent was removed from the application.

The respondent requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing because its counsel would be out of the country.

The request was made well beyond the Tribunal's five-day limit for rescheduling requests.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify the adjournment and noting that the respondent failed to provide alternate dates or explain why the travel plans could not be altered.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding alleging discrimination based on disability sought an order for the production of documents related to the respondent's long-term disability policy and its definition of a pre-existing condition.

The Tribunal allowed the request in part, ordering the respondent to produce any relevant guidelines or policies issued by the Financial Services Commission of Ontario, as the respondent was in a better position to identify them even if they were in the public domain.

The Tribunal declined to order production of documents that the respondent stated did not exist.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination after being terminated from his employment.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed several procedural requests.

The Tribunal granted the respondent's requests to correct its name and remove the personal respondent, but denied its requests to dismiss the application for lack of a prima facie case and for particulars.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to amend the application to add a ground of sex discrimination, but denied his requests to add a new personal respondent and for early production of documents.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application as abandoned after he failed to attend a scheduled teleconference summary hearing.

The applicant claimed he did not receive notice of the hearing and objected to the teleconference format.

The Tribunal denied the reconsideration request, finding no credible evidence that the applicant failed to receive notice through no fault of his own, noting his contradictory statements and the successful delivery of other correspondence to his address.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking production of the respondents' employee and volunteer lists to identify a proposed witness.

The Tribunal found that the confusion over the witness's name had been resolved and the applicant had already filed his witness list without the unidentified individual.

The request for production was therefore denied as unnecessary.

The applicant's request to add a party was also denied due to a lack of details.

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

The respondent failed to file a Response despite receiving a Notice of Application and a subsequent Interim Decision warning of the consequences of failing to respond.

Pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal deemed the respondent to have waived all rights to notice or participation and to have accepted all allegations in the Application.

The applicant was directed to submit any additional materials and advise if she wished to make oral submissions before a final determination.

The individual respondent requested that the Tribunal revisit its previous order granting Justicia for Migrant Workers (J4MW) leave to intervene in the applications.

The applications involved allegations of sexual harassment against migrant workers.

The respondent argued for an in-person hearing on the request and that J4MW lacked a significant interest.

The Tribunal held that there is no right to oral submissions on preliminary issues and declined to revisit its previous order, finding that the social context affecting migrant workers remained relevant to the sexual harassment allegations and potential remedies.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to amend his human rights Application to add an allegation of reprisal, specifically that the individual respondent uttered death threats against him for filing the Application.

He also sought permission to file a late Reply.

The Tribunal granted both requests, finding that the reprisal allegation flowed directly from the original discrimination claims and was timely, and that allowing the brief late Reply would facilitate an accessible process without prejudicing the respondents.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be deferred pending the conclusion of two civil actions commenced by the applicant in the Superior Court of Justice.

The applicant consented to the deferral.

The Tribunal noted that the civil actions and the application were based on the same underlying factual matrix, raising the risk of conflicting decisions.

Given the parties' consent and the risk of duplication, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the civil actions.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, and age, later amended to include reprisal.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal found that the application raised issues of fact and credibility that required a full hearing, and therefore declined to dismiss it.

The Tribunal also denied the applicant's premature request for document production.

The complainants requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that found discrimination regarding the special diet allowance for social assistance recipients with chronic hepatitis C. The complainants argued the Tribunal should have also made findings and ordered remedies regarding cirrhosis from other causes.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that its decision to limit findings to the specific disability of the lead complainant (chronic hepatitis C) was consistent with its established approach to the special diet litigation.

The Tribunal reiterated that it acts as an arbiter of individual rights violations, not as a designer of the government's social welfare programs.

The applicant, a father and primary caregiver, alleged sex discrimination because the respondent offered child minding services at a nearby women-only fitness club but not at the co-educational club he attended.

The Tribunal dismissed the application on a preliminary basis for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that section 20(3) of the Human Rights Code permits recreational clubs to restrict services based on sex, and that substantive equality does not require the respondent to provide identical services at a nearby co-educational facility.