HRTO 2012

The applicant in a human rights proceeding requested an order for the early production of documents and the production of job descriptions for four personal respondents ahead of a scheduled summary hearing.

The Tribunal denied the request for job descriptions, finding them irrelevant to the test for removing personal respondents.

The Tribunal also denied the request for early production, noting that the standard 14-day disclosure rule for summary hearings applied and the applicant provided no compelling reason to deviate from it.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the application on the basis that it appeared to be outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

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

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

The applicant alleged age discrimination when the respondent renewed his commercial driver's licence for only one year, up to his 65th birthday, instead of the usual five years.

The respondent argued that the Highway Traffic Act regulations require drivers aged 65 and over to complete annual testing, and that these requirements apply despite the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the application because section 47(2) of the Code and section 19 of Regulation 340/94 explicitly state that the licensing requirements apply despite the Code.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant failed to comply with a Case Assessment Direction requiring her to remove a recording of the hearing from YouTube, provide a copy to the Tribunal and respondent, and cease using inflammatory rhetoric.

Instead, the applicant continued to use unnecessary, inflammatory, and racist rhetoric in her written submissions and made further ultimatums.

The Tribunal directed the parties to provide written and oral submissions on whether the application should be dismissed as an abuse of process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination based on sex and reprisal.

The respondent school board requested that the application be deferred pending the resolution of five concurrent grievances covering substantially the same issues.

The applicant opposed deferral, arguing that the grievances did not address the personal liability of the individual respondent.

The Tribunal granted the deferral, noting its general approach to defer applications where there is an ongoing grievance based on the same facts and issues, as grievance arbitrators have the authority to enforce human rights obligations.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application against the respondent university.

The applicant argued that there were new facts or evidence, and requested that witnesses be recalled and previous evidentiary rulings be overturned.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was attempting to re-argue his case and did not present any new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative and could not reasonably have been obtained earlier.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates based on medical reasons, providing a letter from a treating professional indicating she was unable to participate in legal proceedings for four months.

The respondents opposed the request, arguing the applicant had systematically delayed the proceeding and failed to comply with disclosure rules.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding the medical evidence constituted exceptional circumstances justifying the delay, but issued directions for future disclosure and scheduling to prevent indefinite delay.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the grounds of disability and sex regarding her termination.

She also filed a grievance alleging dismissal without just cause, which her union referred to arbitration.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer.

The respondent agreed with deferral, and no other parties made submissions.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the arbitration to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions.

The applicant's expert witness was unable to testify because he could not access the applicant's medical records, which were held by third parties.

The hearing was adjourned.

To ensure the fair and expeditious resolution of the matter, the Tribunal ordered the London Health Sciences Centre and the respondent's disability insurer to produce the applicant's medical records to the applicant's counsel prior to the rescheduled hearing date.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that the respondent employer might fall under federal jurisdiction.

After reviewing the applicant's written submissions, the adjudicator found it was not plain and obvious that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction.

The application was permitted to proceed and was ordered to be delivered to the respondent.

The applicant filed a request to reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of a workplace grievance.

The grievance was withdrawn, but the applicant learned of the withdrawal outside the 60-day time limit for requesting reactivation.

Given the applicant's explanation for the delay and the lack of objection from the respondent and intervenor, the Tribunal exercised its discretion to lengthen the time limit and granted the request to reactivate the application.

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

Following an interim decision that dismissed part of the application, the applicant was directed to provide written submissions on the issue of delay for the remaining allegations.

The applicant failed to respond to the initial direction and subsequent Case Assessment Directions sent by mail and email.

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

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the application on the basis that it appeared to be outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

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

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

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability after he was not recalled to work following a layoff.

The applicant had suffered a workplace injury and took time off for physiotherapy.

The Tribunal found that the respondents' perception that the applicant was physically unfit for work was a factor in their decision not to recall him, constituting discrimination.

However, the Tribunal also found that the applicant would not have been recalled regardless due to significant non-discriminatory workplace conflict.

The Tribunal awarded $3,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, but denied lost wages.

The applicant alleged age discrimination after applying for a job/placement with the respondent.

After being invited for an interview, the respondent asked the applicant her age.

Upon learning she was 45, the respondent cancelled the interview, stating the placement was not suitable.

The respondent failed to file a response and was deemed to have accepted the allegations.

The Tribunal found that the respondent breached sections 5 and 23(2) of the Human Rights Code by making an oral inquiry about age and withdrawing the interview offer based on that information.

The Tribunal also held that the applicant's offer to work without pay initially did not remove the situation from the Code's employment protections.

The Tribunal remained seized to determine the appropriate remedy.

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

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to file a witness list, witness statements, and documents within 7 days, failing which the application may be dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to comply with the direction or communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant, who is Kurdish, alleged that the respondents discriminated against him by terminating his employment after discovering his ethnic origin.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was not an employee but was on a one-day tryout, and the decision not to hire him was based on his performance compared to another candidate, not his ethnicity.

However, the Tribunal found that the individual respondent violated section 23(2) of the Human Rights Code by asking the applicant where he was from during the tryout, as this directly elicited information about his place of origin.

The respondents were ordered to pay $1,500 in general damages for injury to dignity and self-respect.

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

One personal respondent failed to file a Response by the deadline.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the non-responding party to file a Response within 14 days, warning that failure to do so could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming him to have accepted the allegations.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that the respondent, a psychologist, made a racist comment to her during their work together.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code or deferred, as the applicant had also filed a concurrent complaint with the College of Psychologists of Ontario regarding the same comment.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss, finding that the College proceeding was ongoing and had not yet appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

However, the Tribunal granted the request to defer the application pending the conclusion of the College's proceeding to avoid concurrent proceedings and the possibility of inconsistent decisions.

The applicants, two students with pes planus (flat feet), requested an interim remedy requiring the respondent school board to provide them with bus service to and from school.

They also requested to expedite the proceedings.

The Tribunal denied the request for an interim remedy, finding insufficient medical evidence to support the claim that they were unable to walk to school without pain or that the pain could not be alleviated through treatment.

The Tribunal also denied the request to expedite the proceedings and directed the applicants to provide more detailed medical information before requiring the respondent to file a full response.