HRTO 2012

The applicant requested an order to permit three medical witnesses to testify by telephone conference during the upcoming hearing.

The respondents opposed the request, citing a lack of detailed witness statements and insufficient time for cross-examination.

The Tribunal granted the request but ordered the applicant to provide detailed witness statements in advance, which the witnesses will adopt as their evidence-in-chief, to ensure the respondents have adequate time for cross-examination.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of race, colour, and ethnic origin with respect to his employment termination.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing on its own initiative to determine if the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant argued he was unjustly accused of sexual harassment and terminated, while a Caucasian co-worker was not.

The Tribunal found the applicant had a reasonable prospect of success in establishing a link between his termination and Code-protected grounds, allowing the application to continue.

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

The Tribunal scheduled a mediation session, which the applicant failed to attend without explanation.

The Tribunal subsequently directed the applicant to advise of her intentions regarding the application, warning that failure to respond could result in deemed abandonment.

The applicant did not respond.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment in employment.

A previous interim decision adjourned the hearing because a Superior Court order prevented the respondent from communicating with or being in the same room as the applicant, effectively preventing his participation.

The applicant was directed to seek a variance of the order within 90 days to allow the hearing to proceed, failing which the application could be dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to comply with the directions or communicate with the Tribunal.

The application was dismissed as abandoned.

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

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed or deferred because the applicant had an ongoing Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) appeal regarding the same facts and issues.

The Tribunal found significant overlap between the WSIB matters and the human rights allegations, and ordered the deferral of the application pending the conclusion of the WSIB process to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent findings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination based on creed, marital status, and association.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code because the applicant had filed a counter-claim in a Small Claims Court action, or deferred due to a Ministry of Labour claim.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss, finding that the Small Claims Court counter-claim did not seek human rights remedies.

The request to defer to the Ministry of Labour was also denied as that claim had been withdrawn.

The Tribunal requested submissions on whether to defer pending the Small Claims Court process.

The applicant filed an application alleging a contravention of minutes of settlement entered into under the old Part IV of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal previously directed the parties to make submissions on whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction, as the Commission had not approved the settlement.

The applicant provided correspondence from the Commission stating it had inadvertently failed to approve the settlement before closing the file, but had now corrected the error and approved it.

The Tribunal found that the conditions of section 54 of the Code were met and it had jurisdiction over the application.

The respondent requested an order dismissing the human rights application because the applicant failed to comply with the Tribunal's disclosure rules regarding documents and witness lists.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application at this stage, but ordered the applicant to immediately deliver all arguably relevant documents, a hearing document list, and a witness list with will-say statements by a specified deadline, failing which the application may be dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of ethnic origin and reprisal, claiming he was unfairly accused of intimidating a colleague and wrongfully suspended.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the narrative failed to link the alleged mistreatment to the applicant's Japanese origin or any other protected ground.

Finding no obvious nexus to the Code and no valid allegation of reprisal, the Tribunal dismissed the application at the preliminary stage for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed an Application alleging age discrimination in employment against her employer, Costco Wholesale, and her manager, the individual respondent.

The respondents requested the removal of the individual respondent as a party.

The Tribunal applied the factors from Persaud and found that the corporate respondent would be liable for the individual respondent's conduct in the course of his employment.

Finding no compelling juridical reason to keep the individual respondent as a party, the Tribunal granted the request and removed him from the proceeding.

The applicant, alleging racial profiling during a traffic stop, brought a Request for an Order during a Proceeding seeking further disclosure and particulars from the respondent police services and officers.

The Tribunal ordered the disclosure of prior race-based complaints against the involved officers to the Tribunal for vetting, as well as documents relating to the TAVIS initiative and Project Charter.

The Tribunal denied the request for documents from the internal Police Services Act investigation, finding them not arguably relevant.

The Tribunal also permitted the respondents to call an additional witness identified late, finding no substantial prejudice.

The respondent requested to defer the human rights application pending a scheduled arbitration hearing for three related grievances.

The intervenor union supported the deferral, while the applicant opposed it.

The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the facts and human rights issues in the application and the grievances.

To avoid delaying the grievance process and ensure orderly administration of justice, the Tribunal granted the deferral request.

The applicant's request to add two witnesses was also granted in the event the matter returns to the Tribunal.

In an application alleging sex discrimination and sexual harassment in employment, the respondents requested an order for disclosure of the applicant's Facebook wall, Record of Employment, and particulars of her remedial claim.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide her arguably relevant disclosure and an itemized list of her remedial claims, noting she had failed to comply with the Rules.

The Tribunal deferred ruling on the Facebook and Record of Employment requests, ordering the respondents to first provide submissions explaining how those documents are arguably relevant to the proceeding.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging failure to accommodate his disability and reprisal.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer the application because the applicant had filed grievances raising nearly identical allegations, which were proceeding to the Grievance Settlement Board.

The Tribunal found that deferral was the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed, as the grievance process was ongoing and the Grievance Settlement Board had the authority to apply the Human Rights Code.

The application was deferred pending the conclusion of the grievance proceeding.

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

The respondent requested dismissal on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release.

The applicant failed to respond to the Registrar's invitation to file a Reply and subsequently failed to respond to a Case Assessment Direction warning that the application might be dismissed as abandoned.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability with respect to services.

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

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled teleconference hearing despite receiving proper notice.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and creed against her former employer and her union.

The respondents sought early dismissal of the application.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had signed a valid full and final release resolving grievances related to her dismissal, barring the application against the employer.

The Tribunal also found that the application against the union had no reasonable prospect of success as there was no nexus to Code grounds, and it constituted an abuse of process because the issues were or should have been raised in a prior duty of fair representation complaint before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in accommodation on the basis of sex, sexual solicitation, and reprisal.

She requested that the application be deferred pending the outcome of concurrent proceedings before the Landlord and Tenant Board and Small Claims Court.

The Tribunal granted the deferral request, finding it appropriate to avoid concurrent proceedings dealing with the same issues and the possibility of inconsistent decisions.

The respondent school board brought a request for an order during proceedings to dismiss a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, arguing it was duplicative of a separate application alleging breach of a prior settlement agreement.

The applicant, a student acting through his litigation guardian, opposed the dismissal but agreed to consolidation.

The Tribunal found that the terms of the settlement were sufficiently general that the applicant could potentially prove a breach of the Human Rights Code without proving a breach of the settlement.

Accordingly, the Tribunal denied the request to dismiss the discrimination application but granted the request to consolidate the two applications to be heard together.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the ground of sex (pregnancy) after her employment was terminated.

She also filed a concurrent claim under the Employment Standards Act based on identical factual allegations, though against her employment agency rather than the placement employer.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer.

Despite the applicant's argument that deferral was premature, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the outcome of the ESA claim to avoid the risk of inconsistent findings of fact.