HRTO 2013

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the application on the basis that it appeared to be outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice within the required timeframe.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application but subsequently passed away.

The Tribunal wrote to the applicant's alternate contact requesting confirmation of an authorized estate trustee to act on behalf of the estate, noting that the Tribunal cannot proceed without one.

When no response was received by the specified deadline, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination against her employer and several members of its management team.

Following a Notice of Intent to Dismiss regarding the personal respondents, the applicant consented to removing all personal respondents except one.

The Tribunal ordered the removal of the agreed-upon personal respondents and directed the parties to mediation.

The applicant, an 18-year-old high school graduate, alleged that he was subjected to age-related comments by the personal respondent and ultimately lost his employment because of his age.

The Tribunal found that the personal respondent made several age-related comments, including telling the applicant to hide his age from other trainees.

Although the Tribunal found that the predominant reason for the applicant's termination was the respondent's concern about his language skills, the applicant's age was at least a factor in the ending of his employment.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to pay $2,000 as compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and ordered the personal respondent to complete an online human rights course.

The applicant filed a human rights application but repeatedly failed to provide accurate information regarding the respondents, naming various organizations and an officer without a last name.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to confirm the organizational respondents and provide the officer's full name, warning that failure to do so could result in dismissal.

The applicant failed to provide the required information within the specified time.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed an Application alleging the respondent contravened the Minutes of Settlement from a previous sexual harassment complaint.

The respondent admitted to disclosing the terms of the settlement to a co-worker, breaching the confidentiality provision, and failed to make any of the agreed-upon installment payments.

The Tribunal found the respondent contravened the settlement and ordered him to pay the original settlement amount, plus an additional $750 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect caused by the breaches, along with 5% post-judgment interest.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Hearing and a subsequent Case Assessment Direction requiring the parties to exchange and file documents and witness lists.

The applicant failed to comply with these directions and did not respond to the respondents' request to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had abandoned the application and dismissed it accordingly.

During a case management conference call, the respondent sought production of the applicant's corporate medical file and WSIB file.

The applicant consented to the disclosure of her corporate medical file for the period from 2009 to April 17, 2012, to the respondent's counsel and instructing client.

The parties agreed to defer the issue of the WSIB file production to the hearing.

The Tribunal ordered disclosure of the corporate medical file in accordance with the consent.

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 requested reconsideration of an interim decision that dismissed his allegations of discrimination, harassment, and reprisal against the respondent.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to explain how his request met the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5, and instead merely repeated arguments made at the summary hearing.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The Tribunal also provided directions to the self-represented applicant regarding his remaining allegations, noting his mental disabilities and advising him to seek legal assistance.

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

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to comply with disclosure obligations or confirm she had no materials to file, warning that failure to comply could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant failed to respond to the direction.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, which was previously deferred pending the completion of grievance procedures.

Following a settlement of the grievance, the applicant requested to reactivate the application.

The Tribunal granted the request to reactivate the application and noted it would consider the respondents' subsequent requests for summary hearing and dismissal.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability against his employer and his union.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether the application against the union respondents had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant alleged the union failed to file grievances regarding his treatment by the employer's health department.

The Tribunal found no evidence linking the union's failure to act to the applicant's disability, concluding the claims against the union were speculative.

The application against the union respondents was dismissed, while the remaining parties proceeded to mediation.

The applicant, a delivery truck driver, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability after sustaining a workplace back injury.

He claimed the respondent failed to accommodate his restrictions, which prevented him from loading and unloading the truck or sitting for prolonged periods.

The Tribunal found that loading, unloading, and driving were essential duties of the position.

The respondent, a small company, was not required to hire an assistant to perform the applicant's essential duties or to create unneeded office work.

As the applicant could not perform the essential duties of his position and could not be accommodated without undue hardship, the application was dismissed.

The applicants filed human rights applications alleging discrimination in the termination of child care services.

The Tribunal scheduled a summary hearing to determine if the applications had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicants failed to attend the summary hearing or provide any explanation for their absence.

The Tribunal dismissed the applications as abandoned and confirmed it does not have jurisdiction to award costs.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on race, place of origin, ethnic origin, sex, sexual solicitation or advances, and gender identity.

The last alleged incident occurred in August 2010, but the application was not filed until June 2013.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide submissions on the preliminary issues of untimeliness and abuse of process, as a virtually identical application had been previously dismissed for delay.

The applicant argued he was unaware his concerns involved human rights and blamed the Canadian Human Rights Commission for the delay.

The Tribunal rejected these explanations, finding the applicant had been aware of the human rights issues since 2011.

The Tribunal concluded the delay was not incurred in good faith and dismissed the application.

The respondent requested a publication ban and sealing order in a human rights application alleging discrimination based on creed.

The respondent argued that disclosing the identity of its federal customer department and its employees could violate the Security of Information Act and compromise national security.

The Tribunal applied the Dagenais/Mentuck test and found that a full publication ban was overly broad.

Instead, the Tribunal ordered a partial publication ban, requiring the anonymization of the customer department and the specific employees involved, balancing the respondent's right to a fair hearing, national security interests, and the public interest in open justice.

The applicant requested an adjournment of scheduled hearing dates after her counsel ceased representation and she experienced a recent illness.

The Tribunal had previously adjourned earlier dates and directed the applicant to provide detailed particulars of her efforts to retain new counsel to justify any further adjournment.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant failed to establish exceptional circumstances, as she provided insufficient evidence of her efforts to obtain new counsel and her medical note did not indicate an inability to participate in the hearing.

The applicant passed away during the course of the proceedings.

The Tribunal previously held the application in abeyance to allow for the appointment of an estate trustee.

Counsel for the applicant requested a further three-month extension because the applicant's will did not appoint an estate trustee and the issue remained unresolved.

The Tribunal granted the unopposed request and extended the abeyance until January 5, 2014.

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 by the specified deadlines.

A Case Assessment Direction was subsequently issued, providing an extension and warning that failure to comply could result in the Application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant did not respond or file the required materials.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Application as abandoned.