HRTO 2012

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the ground of disability, claiming she was denied full-time employment since 2002.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred because the applicant had also filed a union grievance regarding the same recent events, which was proceeding to arbitration.

The Tribunal found that the arbitrator would be dealing with the same factual matrix and had the authority to consider human rights issues.

To avoid concurrent proceedings and the risk of inconsistent decisions, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the arbitration.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding alleging employment discrimination filed a Request for an Order during Proceedings seeking the production of numerous documents from the respondents and the Ontario Nurses Association (ONA), a non-party.

The Tribunal applied the 'arguable relevance' threshold for document production.

The Tribunal denied most of the requests, finding no nexus between the requested documents and the allegations, but ordered the respondents to produce redacted resumes of candidates interviewed for a specific job competition to establish their employment status.

The Tribunal also denied the request for documents from ONA, finding the requested internal grievance report was privileged and the other requested documents were not arguably relevant.

The applicant filed 11 human rights applications against various respondents.

The Tribunal scheduled a consolidated summary hearing by teleconference to determine if the applications had no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant requested an adjournment for medical reasons but failed to comply with the Tribunal's directions to provide the request and medical documentation to all respondents.

The adjournment was denied.

The applicant failed to call into the summary hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed all applications as abandoned, emphasizing the obligation of parties to respect the Tribunal's process and comply with its rules.

The respondent employer requested that the Tribunal defer the human rights application pending the conclusion of outstanding grievances, and dismiss parts of the application based on a prior settlement and section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal declined to defer the application because there was no indication the grievances were proceeding to arbitration.

The Tribunal also declined to strike pre-settlement allegations as the applicant confirmed he was only complaining about post-settlement conduct, and deferred the section 45.1 request to the hearing on the merits.

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

The applicant had also filed four related grievances under her collective agreement based on the same allegations.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the conclusion of the grievance proceedings.

Noting the significant overlap between the proceedings and the applicant's failure to object, the Tribunal granted the request and deferred the application.

The applicant, a medical resident, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by the respondent university.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code because the applicant had commenced a civil action in the Superior Court of Justice raising the same allegations and seeking similar remedies.

The Tribunal found that the civil action and the human rights application relied on the same facts, alleged identical human rights contraventions, and sought analogous remedies.

Consequently, section 34(11) acted as an absolute jurisdictional bar, and the application was dismissed.

The applicant, a medical resident, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by the respondents.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code because the applicant had commenced a civil action in the Superior Court of Justice raising the same allegations and seeking similar remedies.

The Tribunal found that the civil action and the human rights application relied on the same facts, alleged identical human rights contraventions, and sought analogous remedies.

Consequently, section 34(11) acted as an absolute jurisdictional bar, and the application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by the respondent university's medical residency program.

The respondent requested the dismissal of the application under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the applicant had commenced a civil action seeking remedies for the same alleged human rights infringements.

The Tribunal found that the civil action and the human rights application relied on the same facts, alleged identical human rights contraventions, and sought analogous remedies.

Consequently, the Tribunal determined it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment based on race.

The Tribunal scheduled a summary hearing by conference call to determine if the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing despite receiving proper notice and having previously indicated her availability for the scheduled date.

Consequently, the Tribunal found that the applicant had abandoned her application and dismissed it.

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

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation session and subsequently failed to respond to a Tribunal direction inquiring about his intentions with respect to the application.

As a result, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant alleged discrimination based on family status and sex after a fitness club refused to allow him to leave his child at a women's-only club's child minding facility while he worked out at a nearby co-ed club.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal removed the personal respondents on consent and denied the applicant's request for production of the respondent's audited financial statements, finding them not arguably relevant at this stage.

The Tribunal also directed that the upcoming hearing commence with submissions on whether the application has a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant filed three applications alleging discrimination on various grounds, including race and place of origin, against the respondents following his deposition as a minister and other related events.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the applications, finding that the applicant provided only speculation and accusations, and failed to establish a link between the respondents' actions and a Code-related ground.

The respondents' request to declare the applicant a vexatious litigant was denied.

The applicant filed human rights applications alleging discrimination on the basis of family status regarding the care of her developmentally delayed son.

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

The applicant sought the Tribunal's assistance to supervise or manage the delivery of her son's care and act as his advocate.

The Tribunal dismissed the applications, finding that it lacks the jurisdiction to oversee the son's care and can only deal with alleged discrimination or harassment under the Human Rights Code.

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

A summary hearing was scheduled to determine if the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to attend the teleconference hearing despite receiving notice and requesting a Spanish interpreter.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

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

A hearing was scheduled, and proper notice was sent to the applicant.

At the time of the hearing, the respondent appeared, but the applicant failed to attend.

Without any explanation for the applicant's absence, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding alleging disability discrimination requested the production of his personnel file from the respondent.

The respondent failed to respond to the request and failed to meet the Tribunal's disclosure deadlines for documents and witnesses.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to produce the requested personnel file, finding it arguably relevant to the issues in dispute.

Both parties were ordered to immediately comply with the Tribunal's rules regarding the disclosure of documents and witness information.

The respondent union requested that the Tribunal reconsider its interim decision to convert a teleconference summary hearing to an in-person hearing to accommodate the applicant's hearing impairment.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, noting that reconsideration is only available for final decisions, not interim decisions.

The Tribunal maintained its direction that the summary hearing proceed in-person for the applicant, with the respondents having the option to participate by teleconference or in-person.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be deferred pending the outcome of the applicant's claim under the Employment Standards Act for termination and vacation pay.

The applicant opposed the deferral, arguing that the ESA claim did not raise human rights issues.

The Tribunal denied the deferral request, finding a lack of significant overlap between the two processes and noting that any ESA award could be factored into a Tribunal order if appropriate.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of age and disability regarding the respondent's refusal to hold an inquest into her mother's death.

The applicant brought a preliminary request to strike the respondent's Response, arguing that the Office of the Chief Coroner acted without jurisdiction under the Coroners Act.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that jurisdiction under the Coroners Act is a separate issue from whether the respondent breached the Human Rights Code, and lack of jurisdiction would not be a reason to disregard the Response.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant had also filed a union grievance concerning the same subject matter.

After receiving submissions, the Tribunal was informed that the union had withdrawn the grievance.

Consequently, the Tribunal found no ongoing proceeding to defer to and ordered the application to proceed.