HRTO 2012

The applicant and respondent made a joint request to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario to dismiss the application.

Pursuant to section 45.9(2) of the Human Rights Code, the Tribunal ordered the application dismissed.

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

The respondent subsequently filed for bankruptcy.

The applicant failed to communicate with the Tribunal, file required hearing materials, or respond to a Case Assessment Direction requiring him to confirm his intention to proceed.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by his former employer and union, nearly seven years after the last alleged incident.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, concluding it was not incurred in good faith under section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code.

Furthermore, the Tribunal determined it lacked jurisdiction under section 53(8) because the application dealt with substantially the same subject matter as a human rights complaint the applicant had previously filed with the Commission.

The application was dismissed.

The respondent DARTS filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking to be removed from the human rights application.

The applicant alleged discrimination in services after being denied access to accessible transportation.

DARTS argued that it merely contracts with the City of Hamilton to provide transportation services, while the City establishes eligibility criteria and approves applications.

The City consented to the request.

The Tribunal found that DARTS played no role in the alleged discriminatory actions and removed it as a respondent.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the ground of disability by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board regarding his benefits and work transition services.

The applicant noted an ongoing WSIB appeal and agreed to defer the application.

The respondent confirmed the ongoing appeal and supported deferral.

The Tribunal found that the WSIB appeal dealt with the same facts and allegations, and ordered the application deferred pending the conclusion of the WSIB process.

The respondent filed a Request for Order during Proceedings seeking to compel the applicant to comply with his disclosure obligations under Rule 16.1 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The Tribunal noted that neither party had complied with their pre-hearing obligations.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to disclose all arguably relevant documents and file his witness list and intended evidence by June 4, 2012, failing which the application could be dismissed as abandoned.

The respondent was also ordered to comply with its pre-hearing obligations by the same date.

The respondents requested the dismissal of parts of a human rights application alleging racial profiling by police as untimely, and sought an order for the production of a document.

The Tribunal found that the untimely allegations were discrete incidents not forming a series with the timely ones, and the applicant's explanation for the delay did not establish good faith.

The untimely allegations were dismissed.

The Tribunal also ordered the applicant to produce any relevant Landlord and Tenant Board decision regarding one of the timely incidents.

The applicant filed a request for reconsideration of a previous decision that dismissed his human rights application.

The applicant argued there were new facts, the decision conflicted with established case law, and other factors outweighed the public interest in finality.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to identify any new facts, cite conflicting case law, or identify other factors, concluding that the applicant simply disagreed with the decision.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

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

The respondents requested a medical certificate confirming the applicant's ability to participate in the hearing.

The Tribunal issued multiple Case Assessment Directions requiring the applicant to respond to the request and explain her failure to attend a scheduled case conference call.

The applicant failed to comply with the directions or participate in the call.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant, a resident in a co-operative housing unit, sought an interim remedy to stay the respondent's consideration of her request for reconsideration of an eviction decision, pending the determination of her human rights application.

The applicant alleged discrimination based on disability, family status, and receipt of public assistance.

The Tribunal denied the request for an interim stay of the reconsideration meeting, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate that the balance of harm or convenience favoured granting the remedy, as no harm flowed simply from the respondent's consideration of the request.

The Tribunal sought further submissions on the remainder of the interim remedy request.

The applicant filed a human rights application on behalf of his mother, alleging discrimination on the basis of sex, marital status, and age after the respondent financial institution closed a joint line of credit following the death of her husband and declined her application for a new $10,000 line of credit.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and found that the applicant had no reasonable prospect of establishing a link between the respondent's conduct and a prohibited ground under the Code.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by his professional association based on race, ethnic origin, place of origin, creed, and reprisal.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application was filed out of time.

The Tribunal found that the most recent allegations within the one-year limitation period related to the association's disciplinary proceedings against the applicant, which are protected by judicial immunity and cannot constitute acts of discrimination.

As all other allegations occurred outside the one-year time limit and the applicant failed to provide a good faith explanation for the delay, the application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant, a self-represented retail employee, alleged race-based discrimination and reprisal against her employer and several co-workers.

Following the conclusion of the applicant's evidence, the Tribunal directed written submissions on whether the allegations had a reasonable prospect of success.

The respondents sought to dismiss the application for delay after the applicant missed submission deadlines.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss for delay, finding no prejudice to the respondents.

On the merits of the summary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the allegations of differential treatment, reduction in hours, and denial of benefits, finding no evidence linking these events to the applicant's race.

However, the Tribunal found that the reprisal allegation regarding the applicant's suspension and termination shortly after filing the human rights application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The hearing was directed to proceed solely on the reprisal issue.

The applicant, who has cerebral palsy, alleged discrimination in the area of contracts after the respondent Children's Aid Society declined her application to become a foster parent.

The respondent argued that it could not accommodate the applicant's needs without incurring undue hardship in the form of undue risk to the children in its care.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's decision was based on legitimate risk management concerns, including the applicant's mobility, smoking, and plans for managing active children, and that accommodating the applicant would compromise the safety of the children.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing because her representative had a conflicting court date.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the parties had over five months' notice of the hearing date.

The Tribunal held that, absent exceptional circumstances, the unavailability of a representative does not justify an adjournment.

The applicant filed a human rights application.

The respondents failed to file a response by the deadline set in the Notice of Application.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondents to file a response within 10 days, warning that failure to do so could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming the respondents to have accepted the allegations.

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

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

After waiting the standard 30 minutes and confirming notice was sent, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

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

The Tribunal scheduled a summary hearing by teleconference to determine if the application should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing despite receiving notice.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant, a Special Constable with the Toronto Transit Commission, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability because his permanent physical restrictions from a workplace injury prevented him from performing overtime work, resulting in lost income.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application for having no reasonable prospect of success, finding that the duty to accommodate does not require an employer to pay an employee for work they are physically unable to perform.

The Tribunal also denied the applicant's request to amend the application to add an untimely allegation of age discrimination from 2004.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, specifically regarding the respondent's failure to accommodate his inability to wear safety shoes due to toe surgeries and a subsequent arm injury.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed for delay or lack of a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the allegations constituted a series of events, bringing the application within the one-year time limit under section 34(1) of the Code.

The Tribunal also found that the allegations, if true, could plausibly amount to a Code infringement, and directed the applicant to file an additional statement detailing the accommodation history.