HRTO 2012

The applicant filed a human rights application against the corporate and personal respondents.

The corporate respondent filed a Response, but the personal respondent failed to do so.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the personal respondent of the consequences of failing to participate and granting him 10 days to file a Response and explain the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice.

The applicant filed a human rights application 24 days after the expiry of the one-year limitation period under s. 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed for delay.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's delay was incurred in good faith under s. 34(2) because he had sought timely advice from the Human Rights Legal Support Centre, which incorrectly advised him of the limitation deadline based on his retirement date rather than the date of the last discriminatory incident.

Finding no substantial prejudice to the respondents, the Tribunal allowed the application to proceed.

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

The Tribunal requested submissions on whether it had jurisdiction, noting the respondent's employment relations might be federally regulated.

Both parties and the Canadian Human Rights Commission indicated that, based on the Supreme Court of Canada's functional test, the respondent's labour relations fall under provincial jurisdiction.

The Tribunal concluded it has jurisdiction and directed the respondent to file its response.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be deferred pending the completion of grievance and arbitration proceedings under the collective agreement.

The applicant's bargaining agent sought to intervene and supported the deferral request.

The Tribunal granted the union leave to intervene and deferred the application, noting that the grievance raised the same issues and labour arbitrators have jurisdiction to apply the Human Rights Code.

The complainant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in services related to the smoking of medical marijuana.

The respondents brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to amend their pleadings to provide further particulars and additional reasons for denying services.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting that no hearing dates had been set and the complainant had not identified any prejudice.

The respondents requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates due to the unavailability of two witnesses.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding that the hearing could proceed with the available witnesses and that arrangements could be made to hear the unavailable witnesses at a later date.

The Tribunal also issued case management directions regarding the scheduling of continuation dates, the service of a Notice of Constitutional Issue, and the filing of witness statements and documentary evidence.

The applicant, a 40-year-old candidate for a probationary firefighter position, alleged that the respondent discriminated against him based on age during the hiring process.

He claimed the points system favoured younger candidates, the interview panel scored him poorly due to his age, and the requirement to provide a birth certificate and driver's license prior to the interview improperly classified him by age.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations regarding the points system and the hiring decision, finding no evidence of age discrimination.

However, the Tribunal found that the respondent violated s. 23(2) of the Human Rights Code by requiring documents that disclosed the applicant's age prior to a conditional offer of employment.

The Tribunal declined to award monetary damages but ordered the respondent to cease requesting documents with Code ground identifiers during the application and interview process.

The applicant requested reconsideration of several Tribunal decisions and an administrative file closure, arguing that he was medically incapacitated and unable to represent himself during the proceedings.

The Tribunal reviewed the legal principles of mental capacity and found no basis to conclude the applicant was legally incapable of conducting the litigation.

The Tribunal also found that the requests were untimely, no new determinative facts were presented, and the decisions were not in conflict with established jurisprudence.

The requests for reconsideration were denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal in employment against an organizational respondent, a union, and six individuals.

A summary hearing was scheduled to determine whether the application should be dismissed against the union and individual respondents.

Prior to the hearing, the applicant consented to their removal, and the remaining respondents did not object.

The Tribunal cancelled the summary hearing, ordered the union and individual respondents removed as parties, and amended the style of cause accordingly.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging she was unfairly denied tenure in connection with her maternity leave.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the resolution of an ongoing union grievance dealing with the same subject matter.

The Tribunal found that the issues in the application and the grievance overlapped significantly and that proceeding concurrently could lead to inconsistent decisions.

The Tribunal ordered the application deferred pending the conclusion of the grievance and arbitration process.

The applicant filed an application alleging reprisal and discrimination after being denied membership in the respondent club.

The applicant claimed the rejection was due to personal animosity from a club mentor.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting the allegations were not based on any prohibited grounds under the Human Rights Code and did not involve claiming or enforcing Code rights.

The Tribunal concluded it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the application.

The applicant sought to amend his human rights application to include a list of discriminatory incidents dating back to 2005.

The respondent objected on the basis of delay and requested a summary hearing.

The Tribunal denied the request to add incidents occurring more than a year prior to the application, finding they were either not part of a series or would cause prejudice due to delay.

The Tribunal allowed the addition of three recent allegations and denied the respondent's request for a summary hearing.

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

The respondent failed to file a Response by the deadline set in the Notice of Application.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent of the consequences of failing to participate under Rule 5.5 of the Rules of Procedure, and granted the respondent a final 10 days to file a Response and explain the delay before proceeding without further notice.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be dismissed because it was filed beyond the statutory time limit under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to file a Reply to the respondent's allegations.

After the applicant failed to do so, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction warning that the application would be dismissed as abandoned if the Reply was not filed within 10 days.

The applicant did not respond.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned pursuant to Rule 5.4 of the Rules of Procedure.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code regarding the accommodation of her medical condition.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant's union had filed a grievance based on the same facts and issues, which had advanced to arbitration.

The respondent supported deferral, and the applicant did not file submissions.

The Tribunal deferred the application to avoid concurrent proceedings and the possibility of inconsistent decisions.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondents.

Despite multiple directions and extensions of time from the Tribunal, the respondents failed to file a complete Response.

The Tribunal found that the respondents received notice of the Application and the Tribunal's directions but chose not to participate.

Consequently, pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal deemed the respondents to have accepted all allegations in the Application and waived their right to participate in the proceedings.

The applicant, a firefighter, filed a Request for Order during Proceedings seeking production of several documents, including the employer's driving and insurance policies, his driver's abstract, notes, and expert reports related to the decision not to allow him to drive fire vehicles.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the policies were not arguably relevant, the request for notes and expert reports was speculative, and the applicant could obtain his own driver's abstract.

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

He subsequently commenced a civil action for wrongful dismissal that expressly claimed damages under the Human Rights Code based on the same allegations.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction regarding section 34(11) of the Code, which bars an application if a civil proceeding seeking a Code remedy has been commenced.

As the civil action was ongoing and sought remedies under section 46.1 for the same alleged infringement, the Tribunal dismissed the application as barred by section 34(11).

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex by her church, its elders, and affiliated organizations, claiming she was denied pastoral care and forced to resign her membership following a marital breakdown.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed as it was filed outside the one-year statutory deadline.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's near five-year delay in filing regarding the initial incidents was not incurred in good faith, dismissing the allegations from 2003 to 2005 and removing the local church and its elders as respondents.

The Tribunal added two affiliated organizations as respondents and directed a summary hearing to determine if the remaining allegations regarding the internal appeal process had a reasonable prospect of success.

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

The respondent failed to file a Response by the deadline set in the Notice of Application.

The Tribunal issued an Interim Decision directing the respondent to file a Response within 14 days, along with an explanation for the delay, warning that failure to do so could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming the respondent to have accepted the allegations.