HRTO 2013

The applicant filed an application alleging age discrimination after the respondent informed him his services as an election observer in Ukraine were not required.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, questioning its jurisdiction over the respondent.

After receiving submissions, the Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the respondent's labour relations fell outside provincial jurisdiction, as it is a not-for-profit agency operating in Ontario.

The Tribunal decided to continue processing the application but directed the parties to provide submissions on whether the matter should be deferred pending the outcome of a concurrent complaint filed with the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

The Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1573 filed a Request to Intervene in a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

Neither the applicant nor the respondent opposed the request.

The Tribunal granted the request to intervene pursuant to Rule 11.1 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, noting that the application raises issues that may affect the union.

The respondent insurance company requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the applicant's allegations was resolved through its internal appeal process.

The Tribunal denied the request, holding that an internal appeal process lacks a statutory basis and therefore does not constitute a 'proceeding' within the meaning of section 45.1.

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

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to file her witness list, witness statements, and documents, warning that failure to do so could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to comply with the direction and did not communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned and cancelled the scheduled hearing dates.

The applicant, an independent mortgage agent, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, and ethnic origin.

She claimed she received a lower commission rate and was denied office keys compared to other agents.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's allegations were speculative and lacked evidence linking the alleged differential treatment to her being Filipino.

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

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 deadlines despite it being sent by regular mail and email.

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

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

After failing to attend a scheduled mediation on time, the Tribunal rescheduled the mediation and directed the parties to confirm their attendance.

The Tribunal warned the applicant that failure to respond could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant did not respond to the Tribunal's correspondence.

Consequently, 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 family status against Jane Finch Community Legal Services and its individual board members.

The applicant brought a request for an order to add Legal Aid Ontario as a respondent, arguing it was the parent organization.

The respondents brought a request to remove the individual board members as respondents.

The Tribunal dismissed the request to add Legal Aid Ontario, finding no allegations that it violated the Code and no employment relationship.

The Tribunal granted the request to remove the individual respondents, finding the corporate respondent was alleged to be liable for the conduct and there was no compelling reason to keep the individuals as parties.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The respondent failed to file a response within the required 35-day period.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent of the consequences of failing to participate under Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondent was granted 14 days to file a response along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal would proceed without further notice.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code regarding matters that were also the subject of an ongoing union grievance.

The applicant requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the conclusion of the grievance process.

The respondents and the union consented to the deferral.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority to enforce human rights obligations and that deferring to the concurrent proceeding serves the orderly administration of justice.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant had also filed a grievance dealing with the same subject matter.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred.

The Tribunal found that proceeding with the application would lead to concurrent legal procedures addressing the same issues, raising the possibility of inconsistent findings.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the resolution of the grievance proceeding.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal on the basis of disability and sex.

The respondents failed to file Responses despite receiving notice and a previous interim decision warning of the consequences.

The Tribunal ordered that the respondents are deemed to have waived all rights to further notice or participation in the proceeding, and scheduled a case management conference call to determine next steps for the applicant.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability after her employment was terminated following a dispute over the suitability of a modified work offer.

The applicant had an ongoing appeal before the WSIB regarding the same modified work offer.

The Tribunal found a clear overlap between the key facts and issues in the two proceedings and deferred the human rights application pending the conclusion of the WSIB proceeding to avoid duplication of evidence and inconsistent findings.

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

The Tribunal directed the parties to exchange and file documents and witness lists prior to the hearing.

Neither party complied.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction warning the applicant that failure to file the required materials by a specified deadline could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to comply or communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal on the basis of disability and age.

The applicant's union requested intervenor status, noting it was representing the applicant in a related grievance proceeding to arbitration.

The applicant opposed the intervention.

The Tribunal granted the union intervenor status, noting its standard practice to do so absent exceptional circumstances.

The Tribunal also requested submissions from the parties on whether the application should be deferred pending the completion of the grievance arbitration.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing based on age and receipt of public assistance.

The applicant failed to comply with the Tribunal's directions to deliver pre-hearing materials and did not respond to a Case Assessment Direction warning that the application could be dismissed as abandoned.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned and cancelled the scheduled hearing.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to amend her human rights application to remove all references to damages for dismissal and to add the Town of Fort Frances as a respondent.

The respondents did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request to remove references to damages, finding no prejudice to the respondents given the early stage of the proceedings.

The request to add the Town of Fort Frances as a respondent was deferred to the hearing.

The applicant, a supervisor, filed a human rights application against his subordinate, alleging discrimination on the basis of colour and reprisal.

The applicant claimed the respondent harassed him by failing to cooperate in the workplace accommodation process and by making a comment about their different skin colours.

Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal held that the colour allegation was too vague and did not establish disadvantage or harassment, and that the allegations did not meet the statutory definition of reprisal.

The corporate and personal respondents requested an order removing the personal respondents (the Executive Director and Manager of Support Services) from the human rights application.

The applicant opposed the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the corporate respondent was vicariously liable for the actions of the personal respondents, there was no issue regarding the corporate respondent's ability to remedy any infringement, and there was no compelling juridical reason to maintain the personal respondents as parties.

The respondent employer requested that the Tribunal defer the applicant's human rights application alleging disability discrimination and failure to accommodate, pending the resolution of the applicant's ongoing WSIB appeal.

The Tribunal denied the request to defer, finding that the WSIB appeal related to the termination of Loss of Earnings benefits due to the applicant's travel outside the country, and would not determine the Code-related issues regarding the employer's alleged failure to accommodate.