HRTO 2013

The applicant, a probationary police constable, developed severe obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) characterized by a fear of contamination from blood and bodily fluids.

After several incidents where his condition compromised officer and public safety, he was placed on medical leave.

Medical evidence indicated his prognosis for returning to front-line duties was poor and he faced a high risk of relapse.

The respondent informed the applicant of its intention to recommend termination of his probationary status due to an inability to accommodate his disability without undue hardship.

The applicant subsequently resigned his constable position and accepted a civilian role.

The Tribunal dismissed the human rights application, finding that the respondent satisfied both the procedural and substantive components of the duty to accommodate, as the applicant's condition posed a serious health and safety risk that could not be accommodated in a front-line policing role.

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

A summary hearing was scheduled by telephone conference call.

Neither the applicant nor the respondents attended the hearing.

The Tribunal waited until 2:00 p.m. and, having received no communication from the applicant, dismissed the application on the basis that it was deemed abandoned.

The applicant requested to withdraw his human rights application two days prior to the scheduled hearing.

The respondent consented to the withdrawal but requested conditions, including a release, costs, and a statement denying wrongdoing.

The Tribunal granted the withdrawal without conditions, noting it lacks jurisdiction to award costs and finding no reason to depart from previous jurisprudence allowing unconditional withdrawals.

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

The respondent failed to file a Response by the deadline.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondent to file a Response within 14 days, warning that failure to do so could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming the respondent to have accepted the allegations.

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

The application originally named an organizational respondent that subsequently requested to be removed as a party, noting it was named in error.

With the applicant's consent, the Tribunal removed the incorrectly named organizational respondent.

The Tribunal directed the application to proceed against the remaining individual and corporate respondents, ordering them to file their responses within 35 days.

The applicants, who receive ODSP benefits, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability after being denied funding to apply for a criminal pardon.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed several Requests for an Order During Proceedings (RFOPs).

The Tribunal granted the applicants' unopposed request to amend their applications.

The Tribunal also granted the respondent's request to amend its response to include new information that it had recently approved the funding request, finding the amendment timely and without prejudice to the applicants.

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

A summary hearing teleconference was scheduled.

The respondents attended, but no one appeared for the applicant.

After waiting 30 minutes, the Tribunal proceeded in the applicant's absence.

Finding that the applicant received proper notice and provided no explanation for failing to attend, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application but later requested the Tribunal not to proceed because a civil action had been commenced.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring submissions on whether the application was barred by section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant failed to respond to the direction.

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

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to be filed outside the statutory time limits under section 34.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice and subsequent directions.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

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

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to provide submissions on whether the application should be dismissed for delay.

The applicant failed to respond within the required timeframe.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The intervenor union requested and obtained a summons for a witness from Canadian National Railway Company (CN) to testify regarding the respondent's efforts to have CN lift a ban against the applicant.

CN brought a motion to quash the summons, arguing the witness's testimony would be irrelevant since the claim against CN had been dismissed on jurisdictional grounds.

The Tribunal denied the motion to quash, finding the witness had relevant evidence to provide regarding the remaining issues in the application, specifically the respondent's efforts to have the ban lifted.

In an interim decision, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario addressed the production of the applicant's psychiatric clinical notes.

The applicant objected to producing eight notes, claiming they were irrelevant or protected by common law privilege under the Supreme Court's decision in Ryan.

The Tribunal found the notes arguably relevant to the applicant's claim of acute stress and anxiety resulting from alleged workplace discrimination.

Applying the Ryan test, the Tribunal balanced the applicant's privacy interests with the respondents' right to disclosure, ordering the production of the notes with appropriate redactions for non-essential material concerning the litigation process.

The applicant alleged that the respondents breached a settlement agreement resolving a prior human rights application.

The applicant claimed the respondents failed to adopt policies, complete human rights training in a timely manner, and breached a confidentiality clause.

The Tribunal found that the respondents had complied with the training and policy requirements within a reasonable time.

However, the Tribunal found that the respondent condominium corporation breached the confidentiality clause by disclosing the fact that a monetary settlement was paid to a third party, who then announced it at an annual general meeting.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay $1,000 in compensation for the breach.

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

The applicant had also commenced a civil action against the respondents based on the same facts, seeking damages for wrongful dismissal and human rights violations.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

The applicant argued the application should be deferred because the respondents were moving to strike the civil claim.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, holding that section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code acts as an absolute bar to concurrent proceedings, regardless of the potential outcome of the civil action.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging the respondent failed to accommodate his disability during the Law School Admission Test (LSAT).

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed multiple procedural requests from both parties.

The Tribunal struck remedies sought against former respondent law schools, denied the respondent's request to bifurcate the hearing, and ordered the applicant to produce background documents relied upon by his proposed expert witness.

The Tribunal also permitted the applicant to amend his application to increase the damages claimed from $100,000 to $600,000, but denied his request to allow a second expert to testify via teleconference without first providing an expert report.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) on the basis that 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 filed a human rights application alleging discrimination.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide a witness list, witness statements, and documentary evidence by a specified date, warning that failure to comply could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to provide the required documents.

Concluding that the applicant had abandoned her application, the Tribunal dismissed it.

The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination on the basis of a record of offences.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the application failed to disclose how the respondents' behaviour related to the alleged ground of discrimination.

The applicant failed to respond to the NOID by the specified deadline.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed an application alleging reprisal under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application did not explain how the alleged behaviour related to claiming or enforcing a right under the Code.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to file written submissions.

The applicant failed to respond to the directions.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing due to a concussion sustained in a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent did not oppose the request but objected to the requested six-month delay.

The Tribunal found that the medical evidence supported a brief adjournment and constituted an extraordinary circumstance.

The hearing was adjourned for at least three months, as recommended by the applicant's physician.