HRTO 2012

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The applicant's union requested intervenor status, which the Tribunal granted, noting that a union typically has an interest in an application brought by a member of its bargaining unit.

The applicant also requested early production of documents to determine their authenticity.

The Tribunal denied the request for production as premature, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify departing from the standard rule that production is triggered by the issuance of a Notice of Hearing.

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

The application was previously deferred pending the completion of a grievance arbitration proceeding.

Following the completion of the arbitration, the applicant filed a timely request to reactivate the application.

The respondent did not object to reactivation but requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code or as an abuse of process.

The Tribunal granted the request to reactivate the application and ordered a hearing to determine whether the grievance proceeding appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, claiming his employer failed to accommodate his lifting restrictions following bypass surgery.

He also alleged his union mishandled his grievance and failed to advance it to arbitration.

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

Finding no evidence or allegation that the union's conduct was based on a prohibited ground, the Tribunal dismissed the application against the union.

The applicant filed two human rights applications against the respondent employer, alleging discrimination and reprisal.

The respondent sought to consolidate the applications, while the applicant opposed consolidation.

The Tribunal applied the Persaud factors and found that the applications involved overlapping facts, witnesses, and a chronological connection.

To avoid a multiplicity of proceedings and the risk of inconsistent results, the Tribunal ordered the applications consolidated.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

The respondent failed to file a response by the deadline.

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

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

The Tribunal was unable to deliver the Notice of Application to the respondent at the provided address.

The Tribunal also discovered the applicant no longer resided at her provided address.

The Tribunal directed the applicant via email to provide accurate contact information for the respondent by a specified deadline, warning that failure to do so could result in dismissal.

The applicant failed to respond or update her own contact information.

Pursuant to the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, the application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application against three respondents.

Two respondents filed Responses, but the third respondent failed to do so.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the non-responding respondent of the consequences of failing to participate under Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, and granted him a final ten-day extension to file a Response along with an explanation for the delay.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondents.

The organizational respondent failed to file a complete response despite previous directions from the Tribunal.

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

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of family status after the respondent municipality refused to grant her an administrative exemption to build a front yard parking space.

The applicant claimed she needed a larger vehicle to accommodate three children and that the existing rear parking space was too narrow.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that municipal officials have no statutory authority under the Planning Act to grant zoning exemptions outside the formal minor variance or by-law amendment processes, and that requiring the applicant to follow these standard procedures did not violate the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in employment, claiming he was dismissed after a workplace injury.

The respondent argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because it is a federally regulated employer.

The Tribunal found that the respondent exclusively provides staffing services to a federal undertaking and therefore falls under federal jurisdiction.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to reactivate his deferred human rights application, stating his union informed him of a proposed settlement but he lacked details.

The respondent opposed the request, noting the grievance proceeding was ongoing because the applicant had not agreed to the proposed settlement, which required him to withdraw his human rights application.

The Tribunal denied the request to reactivate the application because the grievance proceeding had not yet concluded.

The applicant requested reconsideration of an interim decision that deferred her human rights application pending the outcome of her ongoing Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) claims.

She argued that a newly discovered auditor's report showing WSIB processes are lengthy constituted new evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the interim decision was not a final decision subject to reconsideration under the Rules, and that the WSIB process was still continuing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal regarding his detention at a mental health centre.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application because the applicant was involved in concurrent proceedings before the Ontario Review Board (ORB) raising similar constitutional and factual issues.

The ORB dismissed the applicant's constitutional arguments, and the applicant appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The Tribunal decided to defer the human rights application pending the resolution of the appeal to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions.

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

The Tribunal sent multiple emails and a letter requesting the applicant to provide mutually agreeable dates to reschedule a Summary Hearing and to confirm his intentions with respect to the application.

The applicant failed to respond to any of the Tribunal's correspondence.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, specifically regarding threats and accusations related to his return to work following a workplace injury.

The respondents brought a request to defer the application pending the completion of ongoing Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) proceedings dealing with the appropriateness of the return to work plan.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that deferral was the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed to avoid the risk of inconsistent findings of fact between the Tribunal and the WSIB.

The applicant, a registered nurse, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, and reprisal.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred because the applicant had ongoing union grievances dealing with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal found that there was significant overlap in the facts and issues between the application and the ongoing grievances.

To avoid concurrent proceedings and the possibility of inconsistent decisions, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the outcome of the grievance proceedings.

The applicant, a disabled senior, alleged housing discrimination and requested an interim remedy allowing her to transfer to a first-floor apartment to accommodate her mobility issues.

The respondent landlord opposed the request, citing health and safety concerns and the applicant's attempt to forcibly occupy the unit.

The Tribunal denied the applicant's request to move in immediately due to her forcible entry attempt, but ordered the respondent not to rent the apartment to anyone else pending an expedited hearing on the merits, finding that the balance of harm favoured preserving the availability of the unit.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and sex.

She also filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) based on the same facts, as it was unclear whether her employment fell within federal or provincial jurisdiction.

The Tribunal deferred consideration of the application pending the CHRC's determination on jurisdiction to avoid concurrent proceedings and the possibility of inconsistent decisions.

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

The respondents requested the application be dismissed as it was filed more than one year after the alleged incidents.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision scheduling a half-day hearing to determine whether the application was filed in time, whether any delay was incurred in good faith, and whether substantial prejudice would result.

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

Following an adjournment of the hearing, the applicant failed to respond to communications from the respondents and the Tribunal regarding rescheduling.

The Tribunal sent a letter warning that failure to respond could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant did not respond, and the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.