HRTO 2012

The applicant filed an application alleging reprisal by the respondent municipality.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application failed to identify specific acts of discrimination linked to a Code ground.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's allegations of negative treatment were not related to claiming or enforcing a right under the Code, nor were they attributed to instituting or participating in Code proceedings.

The application was dismissed at a preliminary stage as it was plain and obvious that it fell outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant's union had also filed a grievance based on the same facts.

The respondent supported deferral, while the applicant and the union opposed it, noting that the respondent was challenging the jurisdiction of the arbitrator and that an unfair labour practice complaint was pending before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Tribunal declined to defer the application, finding that the uncertainty of the outcome of the concurrent proceedings and the resulting delay meant deferral would not be fair, just, or expeditious.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application as abandoned.

The application was originally deemed abandoned after the applicant failed to comply with an interim decision directing her to provide information on accommodation measures needed for an in-person hearing or to request a telephone hearing.

The Tribunal denied the reconsideration request, finding that the applicant filed the request late, provided no new determinative evidence, and failed to offer a reasonable explanation for her non-compliance with the previous directions.

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

The applicant failed to attend the teleconference hearing despite receiving notice.

In the absence of the applicant or any explanation for his failure to attend, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

After the applicant's counsel withdrew, the Tribunal and the respondent were unable to reach the applicant at her provided contact information.

The applicant failed to meet disclosure deadlines and did not respond to the Tribunal's communications warning of potential abandonment.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The complainant requested to withdraw the human rights complaint.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario granted leave and the complaint was withdrawn.

The complainant sought to withdraw the human rights complaint.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario granted leave to withdraw the complaint.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the outcome of a reconsideration request before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT).

The Tribunal found that the WSIAT reconsideration process had not yet concluded and there was no basis to reactivate the application at this time.

The request to reactivate was denied.

The applicant alleged discrimination in services on the basis of family status, age, and receipt of social assistance after being denied admission to the respondent university due to his failure to provide an official transcript from a previous university where he had an outstanding debt.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no jurisdiction over 'receipt of social assistance' in the context of services, and noting the applicant provided no evidence to support his claims of discrimination based on family status or age.

The applicant, a black Canadian, alleged that a Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) bus operator discriminated against her on the basis of race and colour during three incidents involving the use of a transit transfer.

The applicant claimed she was unfairly singled out and questioned about her route, and that the operator later retaliated when the applicant took her picture for alleged racial profiling.

The Tribunal found that the applicant established a prima facie case of discrimination, but the respondent provided a rational, non-discriminatory explanation.

The operator was justified in questioning the applicant's destination because the applicant was not taking the most direct route as required by TTC transfer rules.

The Application was dismissed.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled summary hearing pending the completion of the Ontario Human Rights Commission's updated policy on creed.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding no exceptional circumstances to warrant an adjournment.

The Tribunal also directed that the parties and proposed intervenors would make submissions at the outset of the summary hearing regarding the order in which the issues would be addressed.

The applicant filed an application alleging that the respondent bank lowered his credit limit because of his age.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that banking is a federal matter.

The Tribunal agreed, noting that under s. 91(15) of the Constitution Act, 1867, the federal Parliament has jurisdiction over banking.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and the applicant was directed to pursue his allegations at the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of place of origin, claiming the respondent unreasonably delayed processing her membership application by repeatedly requesting translations of German documents.

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

The Tribunal found no proposed evidence could reasonably establish that the applicant was treated unequally or singled out because of her place of origin.

The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment and housing.

A summary hearing was scheduled to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled teleconference hearing and did not communicate with the Tribunal to explain her absence.

Consequently, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant alleged that the respondent discriminated against him on the basis of race and colour by falsifying his HIV test results to show he was HIV-negative, thereby depriving him of medical treatment.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant could not prove the test results were false, as he lacked medical evidence and relied solely on his own belief based on symptoms.

Furthermore, there was no evidence linking the respondent's actions to the applicant's race or colour.

The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

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

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

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondents of the potential consequences of failing to participate, including the possibility of the Tribunal proceeding without them under Rule 5.5.

The respondents were granted a final 10 days to file a Response and provide an explanation for the delay.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that his union discriminated against him on the basis of disability by failing to file grievances and adequately represent him regarding workplace injuries and accommodation.

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

The Tribunal found that while the applicant disagreed with the union's representation decisions, he provided no evidence linking those decisions to his disability.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, noting that complaints about the adequacy of union representation without evidence of discrimination fall under the duty of fair representation jurisdiction of the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability, related to an ongoing effort to have her job modified following a workplace injury.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) had appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss because the WSIB proceedings were still ongoing.

However, the Tribunal granted the respondents' request to defer the application pending the outcome of the WSIB matter, as the subject matter and remedies substantially overlapped.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and age, following a work-related injury, modified work, and subsequent layoff.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application because the applicant was actively pursuing a WSIB appeal regarding the closure of his work transition plan.

Despite the applicant's objections, the Tribunal found significant factual and legal overlap between the WSIB appeal and the human rights application, particularly concerning the suitability of alternate work and the alleged failure to accommodate.

The Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application pending the conclusion of the WSIB proceedings to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions.

The applicant filed an application under s. 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 was directed to respond by a specific date but failed to do so.

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