HRTO 2012

The applicant filed a human rights application which was deferred pending the conclusion of ongoing disciplinary proceedings.

The Tribunal subsequently wrote to the applicant requesting an update on the status of the proceedings and warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal.

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's inquiry.

Consequently, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to reactivate and amend his human rights Application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of a grievance proceeding.

The applicant acknowledged that the grievance proceeding was ongoing and an arbitration hearing was scheduled for late summer 2012.

The respondents opposed the reactivation but consented to the amendment.

The Tribunal denied the request to reactivate because the grievance proceeding had not concluded, in accordance with Rules 14.3 and 14.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The request to amend will be considered if and when the Application is properly reactivated.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination after she was laid off and a younger, less experienced co-worker was hired permanently.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant could potentially establish a prima facie case of discrimination and that there were disputed facts regarding her performance and the personnel agency's knowledge of the alleged discrimination.

The request to dismiss the application was denied, and the matter was ordered to proceed to a full hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, claiming she was unable to accrue or purchase full-time pension credit service while on a reduced workload for medical reasons.

The respondent requested the dismissal of the application for delay.

The Tribunal found that the application was filed more than one year after the last alleged incident of discrimination.

The Tribunal held that the applicant failed to establish a good faith reason for the delay, noting that waiting for other legal proceedings to conclude or taking time to understand complex issues did not justify the late filing.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, who resides in a two-bedroom social housing unit, alleged discrimination based on disability after the respondent sought to move him to a one-bedroom unit because he was overhoused.

The applicant requested an interim remedy to remain in the two-bedroom unit pending the final determination of his application, arguing he needed the extra space for fitness equipment related to his disabilities.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the balance of harm and convenience did not favour granting the interim remedy, given the respondent's limited housing units and the fact that the requested interim relief was identical to the final remedy sought.

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

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed several preliminary requests.

The Tribunal denied the applicant's requests for an in-person hearing, production of documents, and the removal of the union's representative.

The Tribunal granted the union's request for intervenor status, finding that it had a significant interest in the proceeding and could assist the Tribunal with matters related to the collective agreement.

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

The applicant requested an adjournment, which was denied.

At the scheduled in-person summary hearing, the applicant's representative appeared but the applicant did not, and the representative could not explain the absence.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

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

The respondent requested the Tribunal dismiss the application under section 45.1 of the Code, arguing the matter was already addressed by the WSIB and an employment standards officer.

The applicant had also filed an Application for Review to the OLRB regarding the employment standards officer's decision.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application but ordered it deferred pending the completion of the OLRB review, as the OLRB has the authority to apply the Code and would likely deal with overlapping issues regarding accommodation and the termination of employment.

The applicant filed an Application for Contravention of Settlement alleging the respondent breached a settlement agreement by failing to provide her with a permanent full-time position.

The respondent argued there was no such term in the written settlement.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction under section 45.9 of the Human Rights Code because the alleged breached terms were verbal assurances and not contained in the signed written settlement.

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

The Tribunal directed a summary hearing by conference call to allow the applicant to clarify her allegations.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled conference call and did not contact the Tribunal to explain her absence.

Pursuant to Tribunal Rule 3.13(e), the adjudicator deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant requested a last-minute adjournment of her human rights hearing, claiming she mistakenly believed the matter would settle and was unprepared.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that hoping for a settlement is not an exceptional circumstance justifying an adjournment under its Practice Direction.

When the applicant subsequently failed to attend the scheduled hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, which was previously deferred pending the conclusion of his WSIB appeal.

The applicant requested to reactivate the application, arguing that any duplicate compensation could be repaid.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the WSIB process was still ongoing and that allowing the application to proceed would result in concurrent legal proceedings, thwarting the purpose of the deferral.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to amend her human rights Application to revise and add to her description of the alleged incidents of discrimination.

The respondents did not respond to the Request.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, noting the early stage of the proceeding, the nature of the amendments, and the absence of apparent prejudice.

The applicant filed an application alleging reprisal in employment, claiming she was terminated after advising she would file a workplace harassment complaint under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (Bill 168).

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that the alleged bullying was unrelated to any Code ground, and the threatened complaint was under the OHSA, not the Code.

As the applicant was not claiming or enforcing a right under the Code, the Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, ethnic origin, and sex (pregnancy).

The respondents requested an early dismissal under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the application was barred by a concurrent civil proceeding.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's civil statement of claim sought remedies for the same alleged Code infringements and arose from the same factual context.

Accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed the application as barred by section 34(11).

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the grounds of family status, marital status, and reprisal, following her termination.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance of the application had already been dealt with in an Employment Standards Act proceeding.

The Tribunal found that the Ontario Labour Relations Board had heard evidence and rendered decisions on the same facts and issues, including the applicant's concerns about overtime and her termination.

Applying the principles from Figliola, the Tribunal concluded the other proceeding appropriately dealt with the substance of the application and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to add a party and amend the Application to include additional particulars, a witness, and supporting documents ahead of a scheduled summary hearing.

The respondent consented to the additional particulars but argued the other requests were premature.

The Tribunal granted the request in part, allowing the amendment for further particulars, but found the request to add a witness premature and deferred any findings on the admissibility of the supporting documents.

The applicant filed a request for an interim remedy seeking interim payments from the respondents across multiple applications stemming from his dismissal as a teacher.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applications that had already been dismissed were moot, and the remaining applications did not appear to have merit.

The Tribunal also requested submissions on whether the applicant should be declared a vexatious litigant and barred from filing further applications without leave.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability more than one year after his termination.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed for delay.

The applicant argued the delay was incurred in good faith due to his recovery from back surgery and resulting depression.

The Tribunal found that the medical evidence did not establish that his condition was so debilitating as to prevent him from filing the application, noting he was able to pursue a WSIB claim during the same period.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that a City of Toronto by-law prohibiting the possession, consumption, and sale of shark fin products discriminated against him on the basis of race, ancestry, and ethnic origin.

The respondent municipality brought a request to dismiss the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the mere passage of a municipal by-law under general legislative authority is an exercise of political powers and does not constitute a 'service' under the Human Rights Code.

As the applicant did not allege that the by-law affected him in any protected social area, the matter fell outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.