HRTO 2012

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the completion of a grievance arbitration.

The applicant argued that the arbitration had been adjourned sine die while the union and respondent negotiated, and he could not wait indefinitely.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the grievance arbitration process had not yet concluded.

Reactivating the application would result in concurrent legal proceedings, thwarting the purpose of the deferral.

The applicant filed an application alleging a breach of a settlement agreement reached in a previous human rights application and civil action against the respondent college.

The applicant sought to amend the settlement to add compensation for legal fees and damages against a personal respondent.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and found it had no jurisdiction over the personal respondent, who had been previously dismissed from the matter.

The Tribunal further found that the respondent college had fulfilled all its obligations under the settlement agreement, including paying the agreed-upon sum.

As there was no evidence of a breach of the settlement or any link to a Code ground, the application was dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.

The respondents requested the dismissal of allegations pre-dating July 2004 due to delay, and the dismissal of systemic discrimination claims for failing to establish a prima facie case.

The Tribunal found that the pre-2004 allegations were not part of a series of incidents and dismissed them as untimely.

However, the Tribunal declined to dismiss the systemic discrimination claims, finding it premature to conclude there was no reasonable prospect of success.

To manage the broad scope of evidence, the Tribunal directed that the hearing be bifurcated between individual allegations and broader contextual evidence, as well as between liability and remedy.

The applicant, who has cerebral palsy, alleged discrimination after being denied membership in the respondent canoe club.

The applicant filed a Request to Expedite the Application, arguing she would miss the 2012 paddling season if the matter was not heard quickly.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the respondents had indicated a willingness to accept her application and accommodate her, and that the applicant's fear of further discrimination was speculative.

The Tribunal concluded there were no truly urgent circumstances requiring an expedited hearing.

The applicant, a female paddler, alleged gender discrimination and reprisal by the respondent canoe club.

She requested an expedited hearing because she was excluded from club activities and risked missing the upcoming short paddling season.

The Tribunal granted the request to expedite, finding that the imminence of the season and the lack of other local clubs constituted urgent circumstances requiring rapid resolution.

The complainant's next friend was directed to advise the Tribunal if he wished to proceed with the complaints, failing which they would be dismissed as abandoned.

The Tribunal received no correspondence.

The complaints were dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant alleged workplace discrimination against her employer, the corporate respondent, and her manager, the individual respondent.

The corporate respondent was placed into receivership under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The applicant sought an order to substitute the Receiver for the corporate respondent.

The Tribunal denied the request and stayed the application against the corporate respondent, finding that the applicant required, but had not obtained, leave of the Superior Court of Justice or the consent of the Receiver to proceed.

The application was permitted to continue against the individual respondent.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding requested an order for the production of further documents and the disclosure of contact information for proposed witnesses.

The respondent objected, arguing the requests were premature as a Notice of Hearing had not yet been issued.

The Tribunal agreed that the document production request was premature and denied it.

The Tribunal also denied the request for witness contact information at this stage, but directed the respondent to advise whether it possessed such information.

A hearing and case management meeting were ordered to be scheduled.

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

The respondents failed to file a Response by the deadline.

The Tribunal issued an Interim Decision directing the respondents to file a Response within 10 days, warning that failure to do so could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming the respondents to have accepted the allegations.

The respondent brought a Request for an Order During Proceeding seeking permission to rely on documents produced after the deadline set out in Rule 16.1 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant had objected to the late production but did not file a Response to the Request or allege prejudice.

The Tribunal exercised its discretion under Rule 1.7 to extend the time limit from 21 days to 40 days, deeming the respondent in compliance with Rule 16.1.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment based on sex and family status.

After requesting to reschedule the hearing, the applicant failed to respond to multiple Tribunal directions to provide mutually agreeable hearing dates.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned pursuant to Rule 5.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application.

The respondents failed to file a response despite being granted an extension of time.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondents to file a response within 10 days, along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice to them.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant had also filed a workplace grievance based on the same facts and issues.

The respondent supported deferral, noting an upcoming arbitration hearing, while the applicant did not file submissions.

The Tribunal ordered the application deferred pending the conclusion of the grievance arbitration process to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal and discrimination on the basis of race, colour, and place of origin following his termination and a report made to the College of Nurses.

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

The Tribunal found that the mandatory report to the College did not constitute reprisal and that the applicant provided no evidence to support his claims of discrimination.

Furthermore, the applicant had previously signed a full and final release as part of a grievance settlement, barring further claims.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sex discrimination, sexual harassment, and reprisal against the individual respondent, who was the owner of the tanning salon where she worked.

The individual respondent filed a request to add the corporate employer as a respondent and to remove himself from the application.

The Tribunal applied the Smyth factors and added the corporate employer as a respondent, noting the parties' agreement and potential liability.

However, applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal declined to remove the individual respondent, as the applicant made extensive allegations of personal harassment against him.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing, citing recent retention of counsel, delayed document exchange, and a desire for more time to engage in settlement discussions.

The respondent consented to the request.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding that the parties' reasons did not constitute exceptional circumstances as required by the Tribunal's Practice Direction and jurisprudence.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability after being laid off upon returning from a workplace injury.

The respondents failed to participate in the proceedings and were deemed to have accepted the allegations.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's disability was a factor in the denial of hours and subsequent permanent layoff, establishing a prima facie case of discrimination.

The respondents were ordered jointly and severally to pay $13,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and $6,273.75 for lost wages, and the individual respondent was ordered to complete human rights training.

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

Following a Case Assessment Direction (CAD) regarding production issues, the applicant's representative expressed dissatisfaction, stated they would ignore the CAD, and indicated an intention to withdraw the application.

The Tribunal issued a further CAD requiring the applicant to confirm his intentions and comply with previous directions, failing which the application would be dismissed.

The applicant failed to respond or comply by the deadline.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code alleging discrimination and harassment in employment.

At a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success, the applicant withdrew his claim regarding unpaid wages for a religious holiday but maintained his harassment allegations.

The Tribunal held that while some of the applicant's allegations appeared to relate to general management practices rather than Code-protected grounds, it could not conclude at this preliminary stage that the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal directed the application to proceed and ordered the respondents to file a response.

The applicant, a self-represented former restaurant hostess, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, and ethnic origin.

She claimed she was denied a promotion to a server position, had her hours reduced, and received a poor performance review because she is Black.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide any evidence or particulars linking the respondent's conduct to her race or ethnic origin.

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