HRTO 2013

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment based on sexual orientation over a 12-year period.

The respondent sought to dismiss several allegations on the basis of delay and because some issues had been addressed through the union grievance process.

The Tribunal dismissed the older allegations as untimely but allowed the post-2010 allegations to proceed as a series of incidents.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations related to discipline that had been settled in the grievance process, finding it would be an abuse of process to relitigate them.

However, the Tribunal allowed the allegation regarding a 2012 layoff to proceed, as the union's withdrawal of that grievance did not constitute a proceeding that appropriately dealt with the substance of the human rights claim.

The applicant filed an application alleging age discrimination after her long-term disability benefits were terminated at age 60 pursuant to a collective agreement provision.

The respondent police services board acknowledged the provision was unintentionally discriminatory and noted a new, non-discriminatory collective agreement had since been reached.

The parties resolved the application to their mutual satisfaction, and the Tribunal disposed of the matter.

The applicant alleged age discrimination in employment, specifically claiming her manager stated he was only comfortable mentoring younger employees.

Following a summary hearing that dismissed other allegations, an in-person hearing was held solely on this comment.

The Tribunal conducted a detailed credibility assessment and found the applicant's evidence unreliable due to inconsistencies in her notes, timelines, and the unlikelihood of an experienced human resources manager making such an explicitly ageist comment without subsequent action by the director.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to services based on place of origin, ethnic origin, disability, and creed.

He claimed that a staff member at a community centre treated him with hostility when he attempted to use public computers, attributing her behaviour to cultural animosity.

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

Finding that the applicant's allegations were based solely on his own assumptions about the staff member's ancestry rather than evidence of a Code breach, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on race, disability, and family status against a social worker who prepared a custody assessment report and the Family Court that managed his family law dispute.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the social worker because it was filed outside the one-year limitation period without a good faith explanation, and the social worker's testimony was protected by expert witness immunity.

The application against the Family Court was also dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success, as the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to review judicial decision-making processes.

The applicant's representative, an unlicensed individual, failed to comply with multiple Tribunal directions, including an order to explain the exemption permitting him to act as a representative and to explain the failure to file a response to a Request for Order During Proceedings.

The Tribunal found that the representative repeatedly failed to comply with its rules and directions.

Consequently, the Tribunal ordered the representative removed and directed the applicant to provide current contact information and confirm his intention to proceed with the application, failing which the application may be dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging failure to accommodate and age discrimination.

The respondents failed to comply with several Tribunal directions and subsequently requested a one-year adjournment of the hearing, citing a medical note indicating that the respondent Ms. McDougall was substantially incapacitated due to a shoulder injury.

The applicant opposed the adjournment.

The Tribunal adjourned the immediate hearing date but directed the respondent to provide a more detailed medical report outlining her restrictions, limitations, and potential accommodation measures before determining the full length of the adjournment.

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

The respondent requested early dismissal on the basis of exclusive federal jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the request and a subsequent Case Assessment Direction.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to the denial of an extension of time to request an internal review of ODSP decisions.

The application was filed more than one year after the last alleged incident of discrimination.

The Tribunal considered whether the delay was incurred in good faith under s. 34(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's intellectual disability and illiteracy did not explain the delay, as she had been capable of instructing her legal clinic to file an appeal to the Social Benefits Tribunal during the same period.

The application was dismissed as out of time.

The respondent brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking an order that the applicant comply with Rule 16 regarding pre-hearing disclosure, or alternatively that the application be dismissed.

The applicant consented to an order for compliance, citing miscommunication with her representative.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide all arguably relevant documents within 14 days, finding that dismissal was not appropriate given the lack of prejudice to the respondent and the absence of intent to abandon the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sex discrimination and reprisal against her employer and an individual respondent.

The application was deferred pending grievance proceedings.

After settling with the employer, the applicant requested to reactivate the application against the individual respondent.

The respondent opposed the reactivation, arguing it was filed outside the 60-day time limit.

The Tribunal granted the reactivation request, finding a reasonable explanation for the delay and no prejudice to the respondent.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled preliminary hearing due to scheduling conflicts and the need for more time to prepare.

The respondent opposed the request, citing untimeliness and the applicant's disrespectful conduct, and sought orders to stop the applicant from sending derogatory messages.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, noting concerns that the applicant might not be able to effectively participate, which would cause further delay.

The Tribunal declined to address the respondent's requests for orders within the context of the adjournment request, directing the respondent to file a separate Request for Order.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging disability discrimination and reprisal by his former employer and supervisor.

The corporate respondent requested a deferral pending a WSIB matter, which the Tribunal denied as there were no concurrent proceedings.

The applicant sought to add his former supervisor as an individual respondent and to amend the application to include earlier allegations.

The Tribunal granted the request to add the supervisor, finding his alleged conduct was central to the claims.

However, the Tribunal found that allegations prior to August 2011 were statute-barred, as they did not form part of a series of incidents and the applicant failed to establish a good faith explanation for the delay.

The request to amend the application was granted only for allegations from August 22, 2011 onwards.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application failed to identify specific acts of discrimination.

Despite multiple extensions and directions to file submissions addressing the jurisdictional issue, the applicant failed to respond.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant, who suffers from multiple chemical sensitivities and other disabilities, alleged the respondent landlord failed to accommodate her during apartment renovations.

She sought an interim remedy requiring the respondent to clean her unit and reproduce her allegedly contaminated documents.

The respondent requested the Application be dismissed for abuse of process due to the applicant's failure to file a Reply.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss but refused further extensions for the Reply.

The Tribunal dismissed the interim remedy request, finding the apartment cleaning moot as the applicant had vacated, and the document reproduction unnecessary as the applicant could arrange it herself.

The intervenor, United Steelworkers Local 2251, requested leave to withdraw from participating in the human rights proceedings.

Neither the applicant nor the respondent filed submissions on the request.

The Tribunal granted the intervenor's request to withdraw and amended the style of cause accordingly.

The complainant sought to withdraw their human rights complaint against the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario granted leave and the complaint was withdrawn.

The complainant sought to withdraw her human rights complaint against the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario granted leave and the complaint was withdrawn.

The complainant withdrew her human rights complaint with leave of the Tribunal.

The complainant sought to withdraw her human rights complaint against the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario granted leave and the complaint was withdrawn.