HRTO 2013

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the NOID by the specified deadline.

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

The applicant filed a request to reactivate three previously deferred human rights applications and filed a new application alleging reprisal.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the new application pending the resolution of outstanding grievance arbitrations.

The respondents supported the deferral.

The Tribunal denied the request to reactivate and deferred the new application, finding that the grievance arbitration process was ongoing and deferral was appropriate to avoid concurrent proceedings.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal scheduled a summary hearing by conference call and provided notice to the parties.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing and did not communicate with the Tribunal to explain the absence.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, deeming it to have been abandoned.

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

The Tribunal scheduled a mediation session, which the applicant failed to attend without explanation.

The Tribunal subsequently sent a letter directing the applicant to advise of his intentions and warning that failure to respond within ten days could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant did not respond.

As a result, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision dismissing her human rights application following a summary hearing.

She alleged that the adjudicator was biased, denied her the opportunity to present evidence, and failed to accommodate her.

The Tribunal found the allegations of bias to be fabricated and unsupported by evidence.

The Tribunal also noted that the applicant was given the opportunity to identify her evidence at the summary hearing.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed as the applicant failed to meet the threshold criteria under the Tribunal's Rules.

The applicant, a bus driver, filed an application alleging reprisal after a manager reproached him for taking too many bathroom breaks.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the narrative did not disclose a reprisal under the Code.

In response, the applicant alleged the manager told him to see a doctor, suggesting potential discrimination based on disability or perceived disability.

The Tribunal permitted the applicant to file an amended application to clarify his allegations, failing which the application would be dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, following a workplace back injury and a subsequent claim for psychotraumatic disability.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the outcome of the applicant's appeal to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT).

The Tribunal granted the deferral request, finding that while the psychotraumatic disability claim might not overlap significantly, the WSIAT's determination regarding loss of earnings benefits would likely involve many of the same factual questions regarding the applicant's accommodation requests and the respondent's efforts to accommodate.

Deferral was ordered to avoid the risk of conflicting factual determinations.

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

A summary hearing was scheduled by teleconference, and the applicant was provided with proper notice.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing or communicate with the Tribunal.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed as abandoned.

The Tribunal dismissed the application on the basis that the applicant was deemed to have abandoned it.

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

The respondent requested dismissal on the basis that it is a federally-regulated enterprise engaged in interprovincial transportation, producing a Canada Industrial Relations Board certification order and a letter from Labour Canada.

The applicant consented to the dismissal.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, noting that the regulation of interprovincial transportation is a matter of exclusive federal jurisdiction under s. 92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

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

The respondents filed a Request for Summary Hearing.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to respond to the request, warning that failure to do so could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and record of offences.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring both parties to fulfill their pre-hearing obligations, including the disclosure of documents and witness lists.

While the respondent complied, the self-represented applicant failed to provide any of the required materials or confirm his intention to testify.

Consequently, the Tribunal found that the applicant failed to actively engage in the legal process and dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant, an Aboriginal public servant, filed an application alleging race discrimination regarding the appointment of a Director without a job posting or competition.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the application pending the resolution of a grievance filed by the applicant.

The Tribunal denied the request to defer, finding that the substance of the application (the staffing process) was distinct from the grievance (workload, workplace climate, and other appointments).

The Tribunal also directed the parties to file submissions on whether the application should be dismissed for delay.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, which was deferred pending the conclusion of other legal proceedings.

The Tribunal later wrote to the applicant requesting an update on the other proceedings and warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant failed to respond or communicate with the Tribunal.

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

The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of a decision that dismissed his human rights application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant argued that the Tribunal should have sought particulars rather than dismissing the application and raised a new ground of "race".

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no new facts or evidence that could not have been obtained earlier, no conflict with established jurisprudence, and no other factors outweighing the public interest in finality.

The applicant, a union official, alleged that the respondent employer engaged in a reprisal by withdrawing a job posting after he applied for a lateral transfer.

The applicant claimed the reprisal was due to his advocacy for occupational health and safety standards.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the alleged reprisal was not related to the assertion of human rights protected under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging racial discrimination and reprisal by Ministry of the Environment officers during a vehicle emissions stop and subsequent obstruction charge.

The applicant had previously pled guilty to the obstruction charge, admitting facts that included a non-discriminatory reason for the vehicle stop.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that allowing the applicant to re-litigate the facts underlying his guilty plea would be an abuse of process, and that his additional reprisal allegations had no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant filed a human rights application against multiple respondents, including a labour arbitrator.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide written submissions on whether the application against the arbitrator was barred by the doctrine of judicial immunity.

The applicant failed to provide submissions.

The Tribunal held that labour arbitrators are protected by judicial immunity for decisions made in the exercise of their adjudicative functions.

The application was dismissed as against the arbitrator.

The applicant, a nurse at a correctional facility, filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination, harassment, and constructive dismissal.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred because multiple grievances dealing with the same facts and issues were outstanding before the Grievance Settlement Board.

The applicant did not file submissions opposing the deferral.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the resolution of the grievance proceedings, noting the substantial overlap of facts and issues and the Board's authority to apply the Human Rights Code.

The applicants filed human rights applications against the respondents.

The Tribunal issued Case Assessment Directions requiring the parties to provide submissions on consolidating the applications.

After the applicants failed to respond to multiple directions and warnings that their applications could be dismissed, the Tribunal deemed the applications abandoned and dismissed them.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination by the respondent facility regarding restrictions placed on him when visiting his father.

The restrictions were imposed at the behest of the applicant's siblings, who held power of attorney.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss and ultimately dismissed the application at a preliminary stage.

The Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction because the allegations arose from a family dispute rather than Code-protected grounds, and the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period without a good faith explanation for the delay.