HRTO 2013

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled hearing before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring submissions on whether the application should be dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant, who was self-represented, provided submissions indicating confusion over the hearing date and a desire to proceed.

Finding unusual circumstances and genuine confusion, the Tribunal declined to dismiss the application as abandoned and ordered a new hearing date to be scheduled.

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

The respondent requested a summary hearing, while the applicant requested an adjournment and an extension of time for productions due to the unanticipated early birth of her child.

The Tribunal denied the summary hearing request because the respondent disputed the facts rather than the legal sufficiency of the application.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment and extended the deadline for productions, finding that the early birth constituted exceptional circumstances.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Confirmation of Hearing requiring the exchange of documents and witness statements.

The applicant failed to comply with these requirements and a subsequent Case Assessment Direction extending the deadline.

As the applicant failed to file the required materials or contact the Tribunal, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant, an older student enrolled in a Second Career Opportunity program, alleged that his professors and the college administration discriminated against him on the basis of age by treating him unfairly and placing him on academic probation.

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

The applicant admitted he had no evidence to link the alleged unfair treatment to his age, relying only on his belief.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that mere speculation is insufficient to establish a Code violation.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

In a previous interim decision, the Tribunal refused the applicant's request to add allegations and expand the scope of the application.

The applicant subsequently advised that he only wished to proceed on the allegations that had been ruled inadmissible, and did not propose to call evidence or make submissions on the admissible portions.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed.

Given the applicant's refusal to proceed on the admissible allegations, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The applicants filed human rights applications alleging discrimination and reprisal by the College of Physicians and Surgeons, the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB), and the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

The allegations stemmed from the handling of complaints against doctors, the joinder of complaints, and the disclosure of personal information.

Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed almost all allegations, finding they had no reasonable prospect of success, were barred by judicial immunity, or were inadmissible under section 36(3) of the Regulated Health Professions Act.

The Tribunal deferred dismissing one allegation regarding the College's alleged refusal to allow a complaint due to disability, directing the applicant to provide further particulars.

The applicant requested that his personal information, specifically his email and home addresses, be redacted from the publicly available copies of a previous interim decision.

The respondents consented to the request.

The Tribunal, applying Rule 3.11 of its Rules of Procedure, found it appropriate to protect the confidentiality of the sensitive information and ordered the redaction.

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

The matter was scheduled for mediation, but the applicant failed to attend.

The Tribunal subsequently directed the applicant to confirm whether he intended to proceed with the application.

Although the applicant provided updated contact information, he failed to explicitly confirm his intention to proceed despite multiple requests from the Tribunal.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code, which was deferred pending the completion of an Employment Standards Act proceeding.

The Tribunal subsequently sent multiple letters to the applicant and her alternative contact requesting an update on the status of the other proceeding, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant failed to respond to any correspondence.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed two applications alleging racial discrimination and reprisal in employment.

A summary hearing was held to determine if the applications had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegation regarding a 2010 comment as having no reasonable prospect of success and being untimely.

However, the Tribunal allowed the remaining allegations of racial discrimination, centering on a 'slave for a day' email, to proceed.

The reprisal application, which alleged the applicant's short-term disability benefits were terminated for filing the human rights claim, was dismissed as there was no evidence linking the termination to the application.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceeding to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of a related union grievance.

The applicant argued that the grievance had been dismissed and she was unable to obtain updates from her union.

The respondent opposed the reactivation, providing evidence that the grievance was still advancing and a Conciliation Officer had been requested.

The Tribunal denied the request to reactivate, finding that the grievance process was still ongoing.

The applicant alleged that the respondents breached Minutes of Settlement (MOS) resolving a prior human rights application regarding his need to record university classes for disability accommodation.

The applicant sought to set aside the MOS and re-open the prior application.

Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed most of the allegations, finding no reasonable prospect of success that the respondents failed to make reasonable efforts or breached the MOS in their handling of his accommodations or the independent review of university policies.

However, the Tribunal found a potential breach regarding the applicant's right to make written submissions to the University Senate on the reviewer's recommendations, and directed the parties to make submissions on next steps.

The applicant requested to reactivate two deferred human rights applications following the completion of a grievance proceeding before the Grievance Settlement Board.

The respondents did not oppose reactivation but requested that the applications be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the grievance proceeding appropriately dealt with the substance of the applications.

The Tribunal granted the request to reactivate and directed that a preliminary hearing be scheduled to hear oral submissions on the respondents' request to dismiss.

The applicant, an evangelical Christian, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of creed after he was terminated for refusing to work on Sundays.

The respondent employer required weekend work and failed to explore accommodation options when the applicant requested Sundays off for religious reasons.

The Tribunal found that the respondent discriminated against the applicant by failing to accommodate his religious beliefs to the point of undue hardship.

The Tribunal awarded $5,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and ordered the respondent's management to complete human rights training.

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

The respondent raised a timeliness issue, arguing that many incidents occurred more than one year before the application was filed.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations based on ancestry, place of origin, and ethnic origin as out of time, finding no reasonable explanation for the delay.

However, the Tribunal found that the allegations related to disability constituted a series of incidents under s. 34(1)(b) of the Human Rights Code, culminating in the applicant's termination, and were therefore timely.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and age after the respondent employer refused to re-employ her following a workplace injury.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, deferred pending a WSIB objection, and that the personal respondent be removed.

The Tribunal denied the requests, finding that the WSIB had not dealt with the substance of the application, deferral was not appropriate, and the personal respondent's separate response and representation warranted keeping him as a party at this stage.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment against the respondent, a First Nations organization.

The respondent argued that its operations fall under exclusive federal jurisdiction.

Applying the functional test from NIL/TU,O, the Tribunal found that the respondent, a coalition of First Nations band councils promoting political, social, and economic interests, is a federal undertaking.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking the identity and complete personnel file of the streetcar operator involved in the incident giving rise to her human rights application.

The respondent objected, arguing the identity was irrelevant at this stage and the request for the personnel file was a fishing expedition for character evidence.

The Tribunal agreed with the respondent, finding that evidence of other complaints would only delay the resolution of the dispute and that the operator's identity was not relevant at this stage.

The request for document production was denied.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking the production of documents related to alleged systemic discrimination against men and the investigation of competing harassment complaints.

The Tribunal denied the request for documents relating to systemic discrimination, finding them irrelevant as the central allegation concerned a specific incident.

The Tribunal also declined to order production of investigation documents that had already been produced or destroyed.

The respondent was directed to respond to two specific requests regarding the gender makeup of its workforce and the gender of individuals on a competency evaluation list.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on sex and family status.

The Tribunal initially issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant had a concurrent claim with the Ministry of Labour regarding the same allegations.

The applicant subsequently withdrew her Ministry of Labour claim.

As there was no longer another legal proceeding dealing with the subject matter, the Tribunal directed that the application continue in its process.