HRTO 2013

The applicant filed a human rights application against her employer and her union.

The Tribunal previously dismissed the application against the union for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The union subsequently filed a request to intervene in the ongoing application against the employer.

The applicant opposed the request, noting a pending duty of fair representation complaint before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene, finding that the union was an important part of the factual matrix regarding accommodation attempts and had a significant interest in the matter given the overlapping issues before the Labour Board.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

Following the withdrawal of the applicant's counsel, the Tribunal issued multiple Case Assessment Directions requiring the applicant to respond to a request to dismiss and confirm his intention to proceed.

The applicant failed to comply with the directions or respond to the corporate respondent's request to dismiss.

Consequently, the Tribunal found the application to be abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal previously ordered the applicant to disclose arguably relevant documents and particularize her allegations, warning that failure to comply could result in dismissal for abandonment.

After the applicant failed to comply with the orders and a subsequent Case Assessment Direction, and failed to communicate with the Tribunal, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application against the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant argued that the adjudicator ignored submissions and improperly endorsed unlimited surveillance of workers.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish any of the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5, as she raised no new evidence, demonstrated no conflict with established jurisprudence, and failed to show other factors outweighing the public interest in the finality of decisions.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The respondent requested the dismissal of a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability and sex.

The respondent argued the application was filed out of time and that its substance had already been dealt with by a WSIB Appeals Resolution Officer (ARO).

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss for delay, finding the application was filed within one year of the last alleged incident.

The Tribunal also declined to dismiss the application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, concluding that the ARO decision focused narrowly on compensability under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act and did not address the broader human rights issues of accommodation or the allegations of sex discrimination.

The applicant filed an application alleging reprisal with respect to housing, claiming that employees of the respondent condominium harassed and intimidated him.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the applicant failed to explain how he claimed or enforced a right under the Human Rights Code.

After reviewing the applicant's submissions, the Tribunal found it plain and obvious that it lacked jurisdiction over the subject-matter, as there were no allegations supporting a claim of reprisal under the Code.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment based on sex, marital status, and age.

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation and did not notify the Tribunal of her inability to attend.

Following this, the Tribunal sent a letter directing the applicant to advise of her intentions regarding the application, warning that failure to respond could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant did not respond.

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

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of race, colour, age, and disability after a bus driver allegedly failed to completely lower a bus to accommodate her use of a cane, resulting in a fall.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal found that the applicant provided no evidence linking the incident to her race, colour, or age.

Regarding disability, the applicant admitted she did not request further accommodation before boarding.

The Tribunal dismissed the application in its entirety as having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant filed a third human rights application against the respondents, raising essentially the same allegations of discrimination and reprisal that had been dismissed in two previous applications.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed as an abuse of process and that the applicant be declared a vexatious litigant.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was attempting to re-litigate the same issues, which constituted an abuse of process.

Furthermore, given the applicant's persistent filing of the same application without reasonable grounds and her refusal to pursue judicial review, the Tribunal declared her a vexatious litigant and required her to obtain permission before filing future applications against the respondents.

In a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, family status, and marital status, the respondent requested an order for the production of the applicant's arguably relevant documents, medical records, and employment records from another employer.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to produce all arguably relevant documents and her medical records limited to the period up to her termination date.

The applicant was also directed to inquire whether she could obtain her employment file from her other employer.

The applicant's sister filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to be appointed as litigation guardian for the applicant, who has a developmental disability.

The respondent opposed the request, arguing the sister had not been appointed by a court and questioning her involvement in the applicant's care.

The Tribunal held that it has the power to appoint a litigation guardian and that a court appointment is not necessary.

The Tribunal found that the sister may act as litigation guardian, subject to filing the required Form 4B declaration under the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondent hospital requested an interim order for the production of the applicant's medical records, including his occupational health file, records from a treating surgeon, and his OHIP Personal Claim History.

The applicant, who alleged discrimination based on disability (diabetes) following his termination during probation, had refused consent.

The Tribunal found the requested documents met the low threshold of arguable relevance to the issues of accommodation and the reasons for termination.

The Tribunal ordered the production of the records, subject to strict limitations on their use by the respondent.

The applicant, a deaf person, alleged discrimination with respect to services because of disability after he was not selected for an interview for the respondent's Disability Issues Committee.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant could not point to any evidence of discrimination, noting that the committee was not required to have a deaf member and there was no evidence that the cost of sign language interpreters influenced the decision.

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

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

The application was deferred pending the completion of a union grievance.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide an update on the status of the grievance, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant failed to respond to the direction, and the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant, who is legally blind, purchased employment coaching services from the corporate respondent.

He requested that the program materials be provided in Word format so his screen-reading software could access them.

The respondents failed to provide the materials in an accessible format, causing the applicant to struggle with magnifying glasses and eventually abandon the program.

The Tribunal found that the corporate respondent and its directing mind, Dale Smith, discriminated against the applicant by failing to accommodate his disability.

The respondents were ordered jointly and severally to refund the program fee and pay $5,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, along with public interest remedies.

The applicant alleged that the respondent failed to accommodate her disability, resulting in her termination.

The respondent requested dismissal of the application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that a prior WSIB decision finding the employer had not violated its cooperation obligations appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the WSIB decision did not provide any remedy or financial stake for the applicant and that it would not be in accordance with the parties' reasonable expectations for the WSIB decision to extinguish the applicant's human rights claims.

The Tribunal also ordered the respondent to produce various documents and information arguably relevant to the applicant's allegations.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates on medical grounds and to allow time to retain legal representation.

The Tribunal had previously directed the applicant to provide specific medical information to support the request, which she failed to do.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had ample time to retain counsel since her former representative withdrew.

The adjournment request was denied.

The respondents' request to dismiss the application as an abuse of process was also denied, as they had not established sufficient prejudice or unfairness at this stage.

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

The Tribunal had previously deferred the application pending the completion of a union grievance.

After the applicant failed to respond to a Tribunal direction requesting an update on the status of the grievance, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The respondents in a human rights application alleging age and disability discrimination requested an order compelling the Ontario College of Teachers to produce communications between the College and the applicant.

The respondents argued the communications were relevant to the applicant's alleged performance deficiencies.

The Tribunal found the documents arguably relevant but, rather than ordering the College to produce them, directed the applicant to obtain the documents from the College and disclose them as part of her arguably relevant documents.

The respondent requested an order permitting its witness to finish her testimony via teleconference because she lived in the United States and had a busy schedule.

The applicant did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting that the burden is on the party opposing an electronic hearing to show significant prejudice, and that the witness's credibility was not likely to be in issue.