HRTO 2012

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings asking that medical information about her be removed from the respondent doctor's Response.

The respondent argued that the information was necessary to make a full response to the allegations of discrimination regarding accessibility and refusal to renew prescriptions.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the respondent is entitled to set out her side of the story and that the medical information included was generally relevant to the allegations without unnecessary detail.

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

The applicant's union had also filed grievances based on the same factual background, which were referred to arbitration.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer.

The respondents agreed with deferral, while the applicant opposed it out of concern that his human rights issues would not be addressed.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process, noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority and responsibility to enforce human rights statutes.

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

The application was deferred pending the disposition of concurrent proceedings before the WSIAT and civil court.

After the applicant and his counsel failed to respond to multiple Tribunal requests for status updates on the civil proceeding, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be dismissed on the basis of timeliness.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to respond to the request, warning that failure to do so could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to file a response within the required time.

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

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

The respondent subsequently advised the Tribunal that the applicant was deceased.

The Tribunal directed the applicant's estate to confirm its intention to pursue the application, warning that failure to do so would result in dismissal.

Having received no communication from the estate, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in services based on creed, claiming the respondent residential facility failed to provide him with a halal diet.

The application was filed more than 18 months after the last alleged incident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's pursuit of an appeal at the Social Benefits Tribunal was not a good faith reason for the delay in filing under the Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed as untimely.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates due to the death of a family member overseas and delayed funeral services.

One respondent consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the extraordinary circumstances warranted rescheduling the hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

After the respondent made an assignment in bankruptcy, the Tribunal directed the applicant to advise of her intentions regarding the application, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal.

The applicant failed to file any submissions within the required timeframe.

The Tribunal found the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the first day of the hearing, scheduled for March 19, 2012, because the applicant and the individual respondent had agreed in principle to settle the case.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment request and directed the applicant to clarify whether she intended to proceed against the organizational respondent, which appeared to be closed and without assets.

The applicant requested to reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the outcome of two grievances.

The applicant argued that his previous union was replaced and his grievances were no longer being processed.

The respondents opposed reactivation, arguing the grievances remained outstanding.

The Tribunal found that the grievances were not actively being advanced and there was real doubt they would progress.

The Tribunal ordered the application to be reactivated.

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

Following a mediation, the parties requested additional time to reach a settlement but did not file a settlement form.

The Tribunal sent a Registrar's letter requiring the applicant to advise whether she intended to proceed, warning that failure to respond could result in abandonment.

The applicant failed to respond.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed an application alleging reprisal but did not identify any incidents of Code-related discrimination or harassment.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, requiring the applicant to explain how the issues raised might be covered by the Human Rights Code.

The applicant did not respond.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, noting it does not have a general power to inquire into claims of unfairness outside the specific areas and grounds listed in the Code.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates because its primary witness was out of the country and on medical leave.

The applicant opposed the request, noting the hearing dates had been set for months and she had already made arrangements for her witnesses.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding that the absence of one witness did not impede the hearing of other witnesses.

The Tribunal directed the parties to make further submissions at the outset of the hearing regarding how and when the witness could be accommodated.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, and ethnic origin.

During a summary hearing held by teleconference to assess whether the application had no reasonable prospect of success, the applicant stated she did not wish to proceed and requested to withdraw the application.

The respondents consented, and the Tribunal granted the request, closing the file.

The applicant requested an order for the production of documents indicating whether the respondent trained its employees in accordance with O. Reg. 429/07 under the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005.

The respondent did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal found that the training records required under section 6(6) of the Regulation were arguably relevant to the issues in the application, including remedy, and ordered the respondent to produce the records or advise that it has none.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability after she was removed from her position as Director of Care following a workplace injury and subsequent modified work hours.

The respondents maintained that the removal was due to legitimate performance concerns and the applicant's refusal to accept or address those concerns.

The Tribunal found that the performance appraisals raised credible leadership and accountability issues unrelated to the applicant's disability.

The Tribunal concluded that the decision to remove the applicant was not a pretext for discrimination, and dismissed the application.

The applicant requested that his human rights application move forward after being held in abeyance for a year and a half pending a related decision on whether the respondent's employment relations fall under provincial or federal jurisdiction.

The respondent maintained it falls under federal jurisdiction and requested the abeyance continue.

The Tribunal found it would not be in the interests of justice to proceed while its jurisdiction remains undetermined, and ordered the application to remain in abeyance.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex, claiming constructive dismissal upon her return from maternity leave.

Prior to this, she had filed an employment standards claim based on the same facts, which an Employment Standards Officer dismissed.

The respondent requested early dismissal of the human rights application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the employment standards proceeding had appropriately dealt with the substance of the application and, applying the Supreme Court's decision in Figliola, dismissed the application to prevent duplicative proceedings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination during a return to work meeting.

The Tribunal directed a summary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

After the initial teleconference was adjourned due to missing materials, the applicant requested a lengthy delay to reschedule the hearing between July and December 2012 to accommodate his representative's medical surgery.

Despite concerns from the respondents about the delay, the Tribunal granted the accommodation and ordered the summary hearing to be scheduled after June 30, 2012.

The applicant, a former employee of the Ministry of the Attorney General, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal after being issued a trespass notice prohibiting him from entering a Hamilton courthouse.

The respondents requested dismissal of the application.

Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the discrimination claims, finding no reasonable prospect that the applicant could link the trespass notice to his race, ethnic origin, creed, or sexual orientation.

However, the Tribunal allowed the reprisal claim to proceed, finding that the applicant might be able to establish a link between the respondents and the issuance of the trespass notice as retaliation for his previous human rights grievances.