HRTO 2012

The applicant in a human rights complaint alleging sex discrimination and harassment brought a request for an order during proceedings.

She sought production of all emails mentioning her name or sent to/from her work account, and the contact information of a former coworker who allegedly witnessed harassment.

The Tribunal denied the email production request, finding it overly broad and a 'fishing expedition' without specific relevance.

However, the Tribunal ordered the respondent to disclose the full name and last known address of the material witness.

The applicant alleged discrimination in housing on the basis of ancestry, ethnic origin, and place of origin after being advised that a seniors' residence on his social housing waiting list was restricting access to individuals of Greek origin.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application based on the exemption in section 18 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant also raised a Charter challenge.

The Tribunal held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the stand-alone Charter challenge.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the residence met the three-part test under section 18 of the Code as a philanthropic organization primarily engaged in serving the interests of persons of Greek origin.

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

The respondents requested that the human rights application be dismissed after the applicant failed to file a Reply and a Response to a Request for an Order During Proceedings within the directed timelines.

The applicant contacted the Tribunal directly, explaining she had been unable to reach her legal representative and requested an extension to retain new counsel.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application, finding that the potential prejudice to the respondents was minimal, especially since they had themselves requested a deferral pending a WSIB appeal.

The Tribunal granted the applicant an extension of time to file the required submissions.

The applicant, a probationary employee, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of race after his employment was terminated.

The respondent terminated the applicant after he was absent from work without leave, misled personnel, and was found by police with a smell of marijuana in his car.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to show any link between the termination of his employment and his race.

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

The respondent failed to file a response, even after a previous interim decision ordered it to do so.

Applying Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal deemed the respondent to have accepted all allegations in the application and waived its right to further notice or participation.

The Tribunal ordered the matter to proceed to an in-person hearing without the respondent.

The respondent requested that the human rights application alleging workplace discrimination and harassment be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondent argued that an internal fact-finding investigation conducted by the employer appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that an internal investigation does not constitute a 'proceeding' within the meaning of section 45.1.

The applicant, a Black man from Haiti, alleged that the respondents discriminated against him on the basis of race, colour, place of origin, ethnic origin, and citizenship during the hiring process for a general labourer position.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's allegations, including being left alone in a room during an interview and not receiving a response to follow-up inquiries, lacked any factual basis to link the respondents' conduct to a prohibited ground of discrimination.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, citizenship, and ethnic origin against an insurance ombudservice and two of its employees.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled summary hearing.

The Tribunal proceeded in his absence and found no evidence connecting the respondents' written communications regarding his insurance dispute to any prohibited grounds.

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

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

The Tribunal previously ordered the applicant to provide Law Society of Upper Canada license numbers for her representatives.

After the applicant failed to comply with the Interim Decision and a subsequent Case Assessment Direction, the Tribunal determined the application was abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a Request for Order during Proceeding seeking an extension of the deadline to deliver arguably relevant documents under Rule 16.1 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondent opposed the request, noting the applicant's failure to comply or provide an explanation.

The Tribunal found that the respondent would not suffer prejudice, as the hearing was over three months away.

The Tribunal granted the request in part, extending the deadline to February 29, 2012, but declined the applicant's request for a longer extension to April 2, 2012, due to the lack of explanation.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application, arguing that the applicant had signed a full and final release in the form of a Memorandum of Understanding.

The applicant argued he signed the document under duress to obtain his Record of Employment and vacation pay, and that the document did not constitute a release.

The Tribunal denied the request for a summary hearing, finding that the vague language in the Memorandum could not reasonably be interpreted as a full and final release of the applicant's claims under the Human Rights Code.

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

The respondents requested dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, asserting the matter was dealt with in another proceeding.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to file a Reply, warning that failure to do so could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

After the applicant failed to file a Reply by the extended deadline, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant, who suffered a work-related injury, alleged that her employer discriminated against her on the basis of disability by failing to accommodate her, harassing her, denying her a raise, disciplining her for attendance issues, and ultimately laying her off and terminating her employment.

The Tribunal found that the employer had accommodated her by providing light duties that met her medical restrictions.

The Tribunal also accepted the employer's non-discriminatory explanations that the applicant was disciplined for excessive, unsubstantiated tardiness and early departures, and that she was laid off and terminated due to a severe economic downturn and shortage of work based on her low seniority.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment against her employer, Midyanta Community Services, and the Somali Immigrant Aid Organization (SIAO).

The SIAO requested to be removed as a party, arguing there were no allegations against it.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding no allegations of discrimination or engagement of a social area under the Code against the SIAO.

The Tribunal also granted the applicant's request to amend her application to include recent allegations, noting the early stage of the proceedings and the respondent's consent.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application under section 34(11) of the Code due to an ongoing civil proceeding.

The applicant argued she was no longer pursuing the civil action and had not received notice on how to respond to the respondent's request to dismiss.

The Tribunal denied the reconsideration request, finding the applicant failed to provide evidence that the civil action was discontinued and confirming she had received proper notice of the request to dismiss.

The applicant failed to establish any criteria under Rule 26.5 to warrant reconsideration.

The applicant, who alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, requested an interim remedy of $10,000 to pay for medical treatment in Peru.

He also requested that the hearing be held at the Canadian Embassy in Lima or via Skype.

The Tribunal denied the interim remedy, finding it lacked the required signed declaration and had no correlation to the allegations of discrimination.

The Tribunal also denied the requests for an alternate hearing location and format, noting the unreasonableness of holding a hearing at the embassy and the Tribunal's policy against conducting hearings via Skype.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on multiple grounds after being escorted out of the respondent's hotel before closing time.

At a summary hearing, the applicant admitted he had no evidence linking his removal to his race, colour, or any other Code-related ground.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicants, university professors, sought to amend their human rights applications to add further allegations of reprisal and to request interim remedies.

The Tribunal allowed the amendments relating to a 2008 investigation report and the remedies sought, finding they were closely connected to the original applications and would not cause significant prejudice or delay.

However, the Tribunal denied broader amendments concerning more recent interactions, as they would significantly increase the complexity and delay the proceedings.

The requests for interim remedies were also denied, as the applicants failed to meet the significant onus of establishing that such extraordinary relief was necessary or appropriate before a hearing on the merits.

The applicant filed a human rights application which was deferred pending the conclusion of a related Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) proceeding.

The Tribunal issued multiple Case Assessment Directions requesting updates on the status of the WSIAT proceeding.

After the applicant repeatedly failed to respond to the Tribunal's directions, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The respondent opposed the appointment of the applicant's mother as her litigation guardian, arguing she had a conflict of interest because her own actions were at issue in the dispute over the termination of the applicant's support services.

The Tribunal applied the test for litigation guardians, finding that a clear and demonstrated conflict of interest is required to disqualify a proposed guardian.

The Tribunal held that the mother's interest in vindicating her own actions did not conflict with her interest in pursuing the applicant's rights, and appointed her as litigation guardian.