HRTO 2013

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability and ethnic origin, claiming the respondent sabotaged his WSIB claim.

The respondent requested the Tribunal defer the application pending the conclusion of the ongoing WSIB proceeding.

The Tribunal found that deferral was the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed, given the clear overlap in facts and issues and the potential for inconsistent findings.

The application was deferred pending the conclusion of the WSIB proceeding.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the application as it appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice by the deadline.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application but failed to comply with the Tribunal's directions regarding disclosure obligations, including providing a list of witnesses and anticipated evidence.

Despite multiple Case Assessment Directions warning that the application could be dismissed as abandoned, the applicant did not comply or communicate with the Tribunal.

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

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability after a co-worker made a disparaging remark, prompting the applicant to quit his job the same day.

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

The Tribunal found that because the applicant did not inform the respondent employer about the co-worker's conduct before resigning, there was no reasonable prospect of proving a link between the employer's actions and the prohibited ground.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order during Proceedings to amend her human rights Application by increasing the monetary compensation sought from $5,000 to $24,500 and adding certain non-monetary remedies.

The respondent did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, noting the lack of prejudice to the respondent given the hearing was months away, without making any determination on the merits of the allegations or the appropriateness of the remedies.

The applicant, a Black woman, alleged that a physiotherapist at the respondent clinic made overtly racist comments to her during a telephone conversation, contrary to section 1 of the Human Rights Code.

The conversation was uncorroborated by witnesses or recordings.

Applying the test for credibility from Faryna v. Chorny, the Tribunal found the applicant's allegations were improbable and not in harmony with the preponderance of probabilities, given the lack of prior discriminatory conduct and the context of a dispute over assessment fees.

The application was dismissed.

In an application alleging workplace discrimination and harassment based on multiple grounds including disability, both parties filed requests for the production of documents.

The respondent sought the applicant's medical and psychological records, arguing she put her mental health at issue.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to produce medical records from December 2011 onwards, balancing her privacy interests with the respondent's right to answer the case.

The applicant sought production of a letter, a security video, and harassment notes.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to inquire about and produce the harassment notes if found, but could not order production of the letter and video as the respondent stated they no longer existed.

The respondent requested an order for the production of the applicant's medical records and mitigation documents.

The Tribunal found the documents arguably relevant and ordered their production.

The Tribunal also ordered the applicant's representative to identify the category or exemption permitting him to act as a representative, as he had failed to respond to previous Tribunal directions.

The applicant, a Black man, alleged discrimination by the London Police Services Board on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, and sex.

He claimed that police officers treated him unfairly and discriminatorily during an investigation into a break and enter at his own home, and later when charging him with a breach of recognizance.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding that the applicant's claims were speculative and that there was no reasonable prospect he could establish a link between the police officers' actions and his Code-protected characteristics.

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

The respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking early dismissal on the basis that the matter fell under federal jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the Request and subsequently failed to respond to a Case Assessment Direction requiring submissions.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The respondents requested that the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario defer consideration of the human rights application pending the conclusion of the applicant's concurrent Employment Standards claim with the Ministry of Labour.

Both proceedings arose from the termination of the applicant's employment and sought monetary damages.

The Tribunal found that deferral was the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed, given the significant overlap in issues and the potential for duplication of evidence and inconsistent findings.

The application was deferred.

The applicant requested reconsideration of an interim decision that directed the application to proceed against the police services board as the sole respondent.

The applicant had failed to comply with a previous direction to serve a Request to Add a Party on the individual police officers he sought to add as respondents.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the test for reconsideration, as there were no compelling circumstances explaining his failure to comply with the Tribunal's clear direction.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

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

The Tribunal had previously deferred the application pending the conclusion of an Employment Standards Act claim.

After the applicant failed to respond to multiple Tribunal inquiries regarding the status of the other proceeding, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision that dismissed her human rights application as abandoned after she failed to respond to Tribunal correspondence regarding hearing dates.

The applicant claimed she was confused by two letters sent by the Tribunal with different response deadlines.

The Tribunal found the applicant's explanations inconsistent and not credible, noting she failed to comply with earlier directions and only contacted the Tribunal after her application was dismissed.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

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

The respondent failed to file a response by the deadline set in the Notice of Application.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent of the consequences of failing to participate under Rule 5.5, and granted the respondent 14 days to file a response along with an explanation for the delay.

The applicant, a former nanny for the respondents, filed a human rights application alleging her employment was terminated due to pregnancy.

She had previously filed an Employment Standards claim with the Ministry of Labour regarding the same termination.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the human rights application pending the conclusion of the Employment Standards proceeding.

Finding significant overlap in the issues and noting the Ministry of Labour proceeding was at a more advanced stage, the Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application to prevent duplication of evidence and inconsistent findings.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondents.

The respondent CRR Cornwall Roadside Recovery Inc. failed to file a Response by the required deadline.

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, and granted the respondent a final 14 days to file a Response along with an explanation for the delay.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application at a summary hearing for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The underlying application alleged discrimination by police, a hospital, and a children's aid society during the apprehension of her children.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that the applicant failed to meet the criteria under Rule 26.5, as she did not identify new determinative evidence, demonstrate procedural unfairness, or show a conflict with established jurisprudence, but rather attempted to re-argue her case and appeal the original decision.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to goods, services, and facilities because of disability.

A summary hearing was scheduled to determine if the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing despite receiving notice.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant alleged racial profiling by a pharmacy employee who demanded to search her backpack.

At the merits hearing, a dispute arose regarding the time of the incident.

The applicant claimed she had a receipt proving the time but failed to produce it.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision ordering the applicant to produce the receipt within one week, noting its potential relevance to resolving the conflicting testimony.

If the receipt is not produced, the parties are directed to make submissions on whether an adverse inference should be drawn.