HRTO 2013

The applicants filed a request for reconsideration of a previous decision that dismissed their human rights application as abandoned due to their failure to comply with Tribunal directions.

The Tribunal found that the applicants did not meet any of the threshold criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5 and provided no explanation for their failure to communicate or comply with the earlier directions.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

In an application alleging discrimination in employment based on ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, and disability, the respondent requested orders for particulars and the production of medical documents.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide specific details regarding the alleged discriminatory comments, including dates, times, locations, and context, within 14 days.

The Tribunal also directed both parties to disclose arguably relevant medical documents once received from the respective medical providers and insurers.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in goods and services.

The application was dismissed as abandoned after the applicant failed to comply with Tribunal directions to file a witness list and documents, and failed to communicate with the Tribunal.

The applicant requested reconsideration, stating she was not a lawyer and wanted to give evidence.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding the applicant provided no explanation for her failure to respond to directions and did not meet any of the threshold criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code alleging discrimination in employment.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to have been filed outside the one-year limitation period.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice or communicate with the Tribunal.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation, claiming he was unable to access LGBT websites at a public library due to censorship.

The library filed a request to intervene in the proceeding.

The Tribunal granted the request and added the library as an intervenor, noting that the application pertained to the library's internet policies and computer systems, and that one of the requested remedies would require the library's action.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability, family status, marital status, age, and association.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations related to age discrimination and the failure to accommodate the applicant's undisclosed learning processing disorder and ADHD.

However, the Tribunal allowed the allegations of harassment and termination based on the applicant's spouse's disability, her own situational depression, and her children's disabilities to proceed to a full hearing, as well as the allegation regarding the denial of a vacation request.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination after he and another older candidate were excluded from a job competition for a call centre agent position, while younger candidates advanced.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had pointed to sufficient evidence—specifically, the advancement of younger candidates and his own extensive relevant experience—to establish a reasonable prospect that he could prove a link between his age and the respondent's actions.

The Tribunal directed the matter to proceed to mediation or a merits hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability by his employer.

The applicant's trade union requested intervenor status, which the applicant opposed.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene, noting its established practice of allowing a trade union to intervene in applications brought by its bargaining unit members.

The Tribunal also directed that a teleconference hearing be scheduled to address the applicant's request to reactivate the application following a grievance arbitration, and the respondents' request to dismiss the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondents in a human rights application concerning alleged discrimination at a trailer park filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings (RFOP).

They sought production of the applicant's medical records, an order requiring his physician to testify, and various procedural directions.

The Tribunal granted the request for medical records in part, ordering the applicant to produce records relevant to his acquired brain injury, medication, and alcohol contraindications, applying the 'arguable relevance' threshold.

The Tribunal allowed a minor factual amendment to the responses and struck a requested remedy on consent, but denied the remaining requests as premature or unnecessary.

The applicant filed an application alleging human rights violations by the respondent.

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

The applicant failed to attend the teleconference hearing despite receiving proper notice.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision that dismissed her human rights application for being filed outside the one-year time limit under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued that her pursuit of internal union grievance and appeal procedures constituted a 'series of incidents' extending the time limit, and that her delay was incurred in good faith as she filed the application as a last resort.

The Tribunal found that the internal procedures did not constitute a series of incidents and that the applicant failed to identify any new facts or compelling circumstances to justify reconsidering the original decision.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant filed an application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, which was deferred pending the conclusion of ongoing grievance proceedings.

The Tribunal subsequently requested an update on the status of the grievance proceedings, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's inquiry.

Consequently, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of ethnic origin and place of origin after being denied three weeks' vacation pay upon resignation.

The respondent explained that the applicant was paid a prorated portion of his vacation in accordance with a long-standing policy, and that a co-worker who received full vacation pay did so due to a managerial mistake.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success as the applicant could not point to any evidence linking the differential treatment to his ethnic or place of origin.

The applicant filed an Application alleging employment discrimination.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for potential lack of jurisdiction.

After reviewing the applicant's submissions, the Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the Application fell outside its jurisdiction and declined to dismiss it at this stage.

The applicant also requested deferral pending an arbitration hearing.

The Tribunal ordered the Application delivered to the respondents and directed them to file submissions on the deferral request before requiring a formal Response.

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

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario granted leave to withdraw the complaint.

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

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario granted leave to withdraw the complaint.

The complainant sought to withdraw his 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 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 applicant sought to reactivate his deferred human rights application alleging failure to accommodate his disability.

The respondents requested the applicant's consent to release his WSIB file before filing their Response.

The Tribunal reactivated the application and denied the respondents' request for advance disclosure, finding that the application contained sufficient information for the respondents to file a Response without the WSIB file.