HRTO 2012

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the NOID by the specified deadline.

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

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of race during his involuntary detention at a mental health facility.

The parties brought a joint motion for a consent order to resolve the complaint.

The Tribunal granted the motion and issued a consent order requiring the facility to educate patients on harassment and discrimination, requiring a doctor to meet with the applicant to discuss prevention strategies, and ordering the Ministry to pay the applicant $20,000.

The parties consented to the removal of all individual respondents from the human rights complaint.

The Tribunal ordered their removal and amended the style of cause accordingly.

The applicant filed an Application for Contravention of Settlement under section 45.9 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondent failed to file a Response by the required deadline.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondent to file a Response within 10 days, along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice and deem the respondent to have accepted the allegations.

The applicant requested an order to anonymize her name and her immediate family's names in the Tribunal's decisions, citing trauma from sexual harassment and a related sexual assault for which the personal respondent was criminally convicted.

The respondents did not file a response.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the applicant's status as a victim of sexual assault and the risk of disclosing highly sensitive information outweighed the general principle of open and transparent proceedings.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the application because it appeared to fall outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction by failing to identify specific acts of discrimination.

The applicant did not file written submissions in response.

The adjudicator decided not to treat the failure to file submissions as an abandonment of the application.

Finding that it was not plain and obvious that the application fell outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction, the adjudicator directed that the application continue to be processed and served on the respondents.

The applicant filed two human rights applications against his former employer, a school board, and several personal respondents.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to address issues of delay regarding the 2010 application and the removal of personal respondents from the 2009 application.

The Tribunal dismissed the 2010 application, finding that the applicant failed to file within the one-year limitation period and did not provide a good faith explanation for the delay.

Additionally, the Tribunal removed the personal respondents from the 2009 application, applying the Persaud factors and finding no compelling reason to continue the proceeding against them personally.

The applicant, a Black woman, alleged that a caller made a racially offensive comment to her at work, and that her employer failed to investigate the incident and subsequently terminated her employment in reprisal.

The Tribunal found the applicant's testimony lacked credibility and preferred the respondents' evidence that the caller merely asked who the 'owner' of the store was, which was not racially offensive in context.

The Tribunal held that the employer met her duty to investigate by promptly contacting the caller and relaying an apology.

The termination was found to be justified by the applicant's persistent lateness, poor customer service, and insubordination, rather than being a reprisal for her complaint.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the ground of colour.

The respondents failed to file a Response despite receiving notice and an extension of time.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision deeming the respondents to have accepted all allegations in the application and waived their right to participate in the proceedings, pursuant to the Tribunal's Rules.

The applicant alleged age discrimination when his commercial driver's licence was renewed for only one year shortly before his 64th birthday.

The respondent challenged the Tribunal's jurisdiction, arguing that the Highway Traffic Act regulations regarding age-based testing apply despite the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision requesting further information from the parties to determine whether the specific requirements imposed on the applicant were mandated by the regulation, before ruling on its jurisdiction.

The applicant filed an Application for Contravention of Settlement alleging the respondent stopped his benefits after 39 weeks.

The respondent argued the application was filed outside the six-month statutory time limit under section 45.9(3) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found the application was filed more than six months after the alleged contravention.

Because the applicant provided no explanation for the delay, there was no basis to find the delay was incurred in good faith under section 45.9(4).

The application was dismissed.

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

The applicant argued under Rule 26.5(b) that he did not receive notice of the hearing through no fault of his own.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the notice was mailed to the address provided by the applicant, was not returned, and the applicant had successfully received other Tribunal correspondence at that same address.

The applicant filed a human rights application that overlapped with an ongoing union grievance proceeding.

The applicant sought to defer the application pending the resolution of the grievance, and the respondent agreed.

The Tribunal deferred the application, noting its general practice of deferring to concurrent grievance proceedings that have the authority to decide human rights issues.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal in employment more than one year after the last incident of discrimination.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss due to the delay.

The applicant claimed that illness and family stress caused the delay but failed to respond to the Notice or provide medical evidence demonstrating that his illness prevented him from pursuing his rights.

The Tribunal found no good faith reason for the delay and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the Ontario Labour Relations Board and one of its Vice-chairs, alleging discrimination based on race and colour in relation to a decision dismissing his duty of fair representation complaint.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that it lacks jurisdiction over tribunals in the exercise of their judicial functions.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the subject-matter was barred by the doctrine of adjudicative immunity.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal based on marital status.

A concurrent workplace grievance based on the same facts and issues had already been filed by the applicant's union.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer.

The respondents supported deferral, while the applicant and her union did not file submissions.

The Tribunal ordered the application deferred pending the conclusion of the grievance proceedings, noting that grievance arbitrators have the power and responsibility to enforce human rights obligations.

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

A concurrent workplace grievance based on the same facts and issues had been filed by the applicant's union prior to the application.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer.

Finding that the grievance process could adequately address the human rights concerns, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance proceedings.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss to address potential delay in filing.

After reviewing the applicant's submissions, the Tribunal applied the plain and obvious test and found it was not clear that the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal directed that the application be processed and served on the respondent, noting the respondent could still raise the delay issue.

The applicant in a human rights complaint alleging disability discrimination filed Requests for Order During Proceedings seeking specifics regarding medical records sought by the respondent, an order that the respondent pay for the records, and an order that the respondent obtain WSIB records directly.

The applicant also requested anonymization of the Tribunal's decisions.

The respondent requested an extension of time and an adjournment.

The Tribunal denied the applicant's requests, ordering her to comply with a previous production order, and found no basis for anonymization.

The respondent's requests were denied as premature.

In a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex, the respondents requested an order for the immediate production of the applicant's medical records.

The Tribunal found the records arguably relevant as the applicant put her mental health in issue, but denied the request as it was made too late in the proceedings, without prejudice to raising it later.

The Tribunal also deferred a request for a witness to testify by telephone and denied the respondents' request for a summons for the applicant.