HRTO 2012

The Tribunal convened a summary hearing by teleconference to determine whether the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application against his employer more than one year after the last alleged incident of discrimination.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss due to the delay.

The applicant argued the delay was justified because he was trying to resolve the issue internally, was unaware of the time limit, and lacked emotional strength due to being on disability leave.

The Tribunal found these reasons did not establish good faith for the delay, noting the lack of medical evidence and the principle that ignorance of the law or internal resolution attempts do not excuse missing the statutory deadline.

The application was dismissed.

In an interim decision, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario addressed several preliminary requests in an application alleging racial discrimination in employment.

The Tribunal granted the respondents' request to remove three personal respondents whose alleged conduct was not central to the dispute, but retained the primary supervisor as a respondent.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide further particulars of his allegations to ensure a fair hearing.

The applicant's request to remove the corporate respondent's counsel for an alleged conflict of interest was dismissed as extraordinary and unjustified.

Finally, the Tribunal excluded allegations dating back to 1998-2000 as being out of time and lacking probative value.

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

The applicant requested to remove a personal respondent, to which the respondents consented.

The Tribunal granted the request and amended the style of cause.

The Tribunal also directed the applicant to file submissions regarding the respondents' request to remove all remaining personal respondents.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging failure to accommodate and disability discrimination.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application because the applicant's union had already filed a grievance based on the same facts and human rights issues.

Finding a substantial overlap between the grievance and the application, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process.

The applicant requested that his physician be permitted to testify by teleconference at the hearing, citing travel distance and the financial impact of missing a day of practice.

The respondents opposed the request, arguing that the physician's evidence was central to the case and that in-person testimony was necessary to properly examine the witness on extensive medical documentation.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that given the extensive and key nature of the proposed evidence and the need to review detailed medical documents, it would be impractical and inappropriate to conduct the examination by teleconference.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment in employment based on race, place of origin, citizenship, and ethnic origin.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations regarding the termination of employment, finding no evidence connecting the dismissal to a prohibited ground.

However, the Tribunal allowed the harassment allegations to proceed, as the applicant provided evidence that the individual respondent made racial comments.

The applicant was directed to provide submissions on the timeliness of the harassment allegations.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed nine of her applications alleging discrimination in services, goods, and facilities on the basis of race and other grounds, and declared her a vexatious litigant.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet any of the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5, as she did not provide new determinative evidence, demonstrate lack of notice, refer to conflicting jurisprudence, or list other factors outweighing the public interest in finality.

The requests for reconsideration were dismissed.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application against a bank for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to present any new facts, evidence, or other grounds required under section 45.7 of the Human Rights Code and Rule 26.5 to justify reconsidering the decision.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant's bargaining agent, the Ontario Provincial Police Association (OPPA), filed a request to intervene in a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex and family status.

The Tribunal noted its established practice of granting intervenor status to a union or association representing an applicant in a bargaining unit, absent exceptional circumstances.

Finding that the OPPA had a significant interest in the allegations and could offer a unique perspective, the Tribunal granted the OPPA intervenor status.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment as a truck driver.

The respondent argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the employer was a federally regulated interprovincial transportation business.

The Tribunal found that the transportation business extended beyond the limits of the province, placing it under exclusive federal jurisdiction pursuant to s. 92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant sought to re-activate his human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability, following a WSIAT decision that found his injuries were not work-related.

The applicant missed the 60-day deadline to re-activate due to his counsel's inadvertence, but the Tribunal relieved against the failure to comply.

The corporate respondent argued the application should be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code because the WSIAT decision appropriately dealt with the substance of the complaint.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations related to the work-relatedness of the injury, but allowed the allegations regarding the failure to provide ergonomic equipment and discriminatory comments to proceed, as WSIAT did not determine those human rights issues.

The Tribunal also removed all personal respondents, finding no compelling reason to continue the proceeding against them.

The applicant filed a request for reconsideration of a previous decision that dismissed his human rights application for being filed outside the one-year limitation period.

The applicant claimed the adjudicator made an error in law but failed to provide detailed reasons or representations specifying the nature of the error.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration because the applicant failed to meet the criteria set out in the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant filed a human rights application but subsequently passed away.

The Tribunal contacted the applicant's estate to determine its intentions regarding the continuation of the application.

After the estate failed to respond to multiple communications, including a Case Assessment Direction, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the ground of disability, claiming she was forced to resign under duress.

The respondents brought a motion to dismiss the application for delay.

The Tribunal scheduled a conference call hearing to address the delay issue.

When the applicant failed to attend the hearing or communicate with the Tribunal, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The self-represented applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled summary hearing, citing the need for time to prepare a motion that he believed would shed light on the hearing.

The respondents did not consent to the adjournment.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario denied the request, finding that the applicant's reason did not constitute exceptional circumstances as required by the Tribunal's Practice Direction on Scheduling of Hearings and Mediations, Rescheduling Requests, and Requests for Adjournments.

The applicant, a former insurance broker, alleged that the provincial regulatory body discriminated against him on the basis of race, colour, place of origin, and ethnic origin.

He claimed that the regulator disciplined him but did not discipline Caucasian brokers in similar circumstances, and that it unfairly enforced its 'two market' requirement.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to identify any evidence that would establish a link between the regulator's actions and the alleged prohibited grounds of discrimination.

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

The applicant requested to re-activate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending an appeal before the Special Education Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the Special Education Tribunal appeal process was complete and ordered the application re-activated.

However, the Tribunal scheduled a hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code on the basis that the substance of the application had been appropriately dealt with in the other proceeding.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and age against the insurance company that administered his federally-regulated employer's self-insured disability plan.

The Tribunal dismissed the application on two preliminary grounds.

First, the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code, and the applicant failed to establish that the delay was incurred in good faith.

Second, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the respondent merely administered a self-insured plan for Canada Post, a federally-regulated undertaking, meaning the matter fell under federal jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging harassment, reprisal, and discrimination on the basis of disability following the termination of her employment.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the harassment and reprisal claims, finding that the alleged harassment was not based on any Code-protected grounds.

However, the Tribunal allowed the allegations of discrimination on the basis of disability regarding the applicant's sick leave and termination to proceed.