HRTO 2013

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code, which was deferred pending the conclusion of Employment Standards Act proceedings.

After the respondent indicated the applicant would not pursue the matter, the Tribunal sent multiple requests for the applicant to confirm her intentions.

The applicant failed to respond to the correspondence.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that the respondent employer reprised against her by denying her a voluntary exit opportunity.

The applicant conceded that these allegations had been appropriately dealt with by the Grievance Settlement Board and should be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant sought to amend her application to allege that the respondent's failure to investigate her reprisal allegations under its internal policy constituted a further reprisal.

The Tribunal found that this new claim had no reasonable prospect of success, as there was no evidence that the failure to investigate was motivated by an intention to punish the applicant for claiming her rights under the Code.

The application was dismissed.

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

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to comply with Rules 16 and 17 regarding witness lists and documents.

The applicant failed to comply or respond within the specified time.

The application was dismissed as abandoned.

The intervenor sought direction on whether e-mails between its counsel and its proposed expert witness regarding hearing preparation and draft responses were subject to a prior disclosure order.

The corporate respondent argued the communications amounted to draft reports or instructions and should be disclosed.

The Tribunal held that the communications fell within litigation privilege and did not constitute instructions or draft reports within the meaning of the production order.

The Tribunal directed that the e-mails need not be disclosed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging failure to accommodate her disability following a demotion.

The respondents sought to dismiss the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code or as an abuse of process, arguing that the withdrawal of a related union grievance 'with prejudice' precluded the application.

The respondents also requested production of a legal opinion provided to the applicant by her union.

The Tribunal denied the production request, finding the reasons for the legal opinion irrelevant.

The Tribunal also dismissed the request to dismiss the application, concluding that the grievance withdrawal did not constitute a proceeding that appropriately dealt with the substance of the application, and that proceeding with the broader human rights application was not an abuse of process.

The respondent union requested an order to dismiss the human rights application for disclosing no prima facie case and for delay.

The Tribunal denied the request for a summary hearing.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the allegations relating to incidents between May and August 2010 for delay, finding that the applicant failed to provide a good faith explanation for filing the application more than one year after the incidents occurred.

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

The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because a key witness was on disability leave.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, finding no exceptional circumstances, as there was no medical evidence showing the witness was incapable of testifying and the hearing could proceed with other evidence first.

The Tribunal also confirmed the removal of the human resources manager as a personal respondent on consent of the parties.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment.

In an interim decision, the Tribunal removed the union respondents on consent of the applicant.

The Tribunal also directed that a teleconference hearing would proceed to address the issues of delay in filing the application and whether the application should be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code because the substance was dealt with by a Board of Referees.

The applicant requested to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the outcome of a concurrent union grievance.

She argued that the delay in the grievance process was prejudicial and that the subject matter differed.

The Tribunal found significant overlap between the issues in the application and the grievance, both relating to workplace accommodation.

To avoid inconsistent decisions, the Tribunal dismissed the request to reactivate, finding that continued deferral was the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed.

The applicants, who required in-vitro fertilization (IVF) and preimplantation genetic diagnosis due to disabilities, filed human rights applications alleging discrimination after OHIP denied coverage for their treatments.

The respondent requested that the applications be dismissed for delay, as the last IVF treatments occurred more than a year before the applications were filed.

The applicants argued that a recent visit to their doctor, who confirmed the ongoing lack of coverage, constituted a fresh incident of discrimination.

The Tribunal held that the doctor's visit was not a fresh step by the respondent and did not constitute a new incident of discrimination.

As the applicants provided no good faith reason for the delay, the applications were dismissed.

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

One respondent filed a response, but the other, the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation, failed to do so.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the non-responding party to file a response within 14 days, along with an explanation for the delay.

The Tribunal warned that failure to comply could result in the matter proceeding without further notice, pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a preliminary hearing scheduled to address the respondent's request to dismiss the application as an abuse of process and under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued that an adjournment was necessary to obtain the union file and that the respondent should be required to file a full Response on the merits.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment to allow the applicant to obtain information from the union, but held that a full Response was not required and that a one-day hearing remained appropriate.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order during Proceedings to add reprisal allegations and compel the respondent to continue an external investigator's retainer.

The application had previously been deferred pending the conclusion of grievance procedures.

The Tribunal declined to consider the requests, noting that the grievance proceedings had not concluded and the application must remain deferred until a proper request to reactivate is filed under Rule 14.

The applicant filed an application alleging reprisal in employment after being disciplined for attempting to apologize to a co-worker for a previous incident.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, directing the applicant to identify how the employer's actions related to claiming or enforcing a right under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's submissions failed to establish any connection between the discipline and a Code-protected ground or reprisal.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to comply with the Tribunal's Rules 16 and 17 regarding the delivery of witness lists, witness statements, and documents.

After being issued a Case Assessment Direction warning that the application could be dismissed if she did not comply, the applicant failed to respond or communicate with the Tribunal.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant, a seasonal municipal worker, alleged discrimination and harassment based on her sexual orientation and same-sex relationship with a co-worker.

She claimed that co-workers fabricated complaints against her, that management conducted a biased investigation, and that her subsequent transfers to different work locations were discriminatory.

The Tribunal dismissed older allegations for delay and found that the workplace tensions and subsequent management actions were related to interpersonal conflicts over resources, not the applicant's sexual orientation.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of sex.

The Tribunal's notices to the respondents were returned as the business had closed and the personal respondent had moved.

The applicant was directed to find alternative contact information or provide proof of personal delivery, but failed to do so.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that it would be procedurally unfair to proceed without effective notice to the respondents.

The respondents requested a summary hearing, the removal of individual respondents from the application, and an amendment to the style of cause to reflect the applicant's new legal name.

The Tribunal denied the request for a summary hearing.

The Tribunal granted the request to remove the individual respondents, noting that the organizational respondent accepted vicarious liability and there was no compelling reason to continue against the individuals.

The Tribunal also amended the style of cause to reflect the applicant's legal name.

The applicants filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend their human rights applications to include the grounds of family status and marital status, and to add claims for monetary compensation and public interest remedies.

The respondents did not oppose the amendments but requested the opportunity to file an amended Response.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission also filed a Notice of Intervention.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend the applications and permitted the Commission to intervene as a party.

The applicant, who self-identifies as Black, filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race and colour after being unsuccessful in 16 job competitions with the respondent.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's belief that he was not hired due to his race was speculative and that he failed to point to any evidence linking the respondent's hiring decisions or an interviewer's comments to a prohibited ground.

The application was dismissed.