HRTO 2013

The applicant filed a human rights application against the organizational and individual respondents.

The organizational respondent filed a response, but the individual respondent failed to do so.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the individual 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 under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the application because it appeared to be outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice within the required timeframe.

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

The applicant in a human rights proceeding requested an order allowing two witnesses to testify by videoconference.

The Tribunal granted the request for one witness residing in Vancouver, noting that videoconferencing addresses demeanour concerns and the applicant could not afford to fly the witness to Toronto.

The request for the second witness was denied because the applicant failed to establish why the witness could not appear in person.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination.

The union, acting as the applicant's bargaining agent, sought intervenor status, which was granted on consent.

The union and the respondents requested that the application be deferred pending the resolution of four outstanding grievances related to the same facts and human rights issues.

Over the applicant's objections regarding delay, the Tribunal deferred the application, noting that it is generally appropriate to defer when a parallel grievance process is underway to avoid concurrent proceedings and contradictory decisions.

The personal respondent requested a reconsideration of a decision finding him and the corporate respondent jointly and severally liable for sex discrimination in employment.

He argued that he did not receive notice of the hearing through no fault of his own and that he had new evidence to present.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the respondent was aware of the proceedings, had been personally served with the applicant's reply, and failed to update his contact information.

The Tribunal also held that the proposed new evidence could have been presented had he attended the hearing.

The applicant filed an Application alleging that the respondent breached a settlement agreement by failing to pay the agreed-upon installments.

The respondent failed to file a Response and was deemed to have accepted the allegations.

The Tribunal found that the respondent breached the settlement by failing to ensure sufficient funds were available for the cheques provided and by paying late.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the remaining $2,285.72 owed under the settlement, plus an additional $1,000 as monetary compensation for the harm caused by the breach.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to housing by her housing cooperative and its representatives.

A summary hearing was scheduled to determine if the application should be dismissed because its subject matter had been dealt with in Superior Court proceedings or had no reasonable prospect of success.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the application due to the applicant's failure to appear and prosecute her case, noting the significant resources already expended by the respondents and the Tribunal.

The parties filed Requests for Order During Proceeding regarding the removal of the individual respondent and the production of various documents.

The Tribunal denied the request to remove the individual respondent, finding that her conduct was central to the applicant's reprisal allegations.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to produce her resume, OISE application, and mental health records from August 2010 to August 2011.

The respondents were ordered to produce the applicant's harassment complaint from the 2010/2011 school year.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming he was terminated after a workplace accident.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for delay, as the application was filed more than one year after the termination.

The applicant provided written submissions explaining he was waiting for his union to resolve his grievances based on legal advice.

The Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the application should be dismissed for delay.

However, the Tribunal noted the respondent had filed a Notice of Intention to Make a Proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, which stays proceedings.

The applicant was directed to provide submissions on whether the stay is still in place.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability against JP Morgan Chase & Co. The respondent requested dismissal on the basis that it is a federally-regulated bank under the Bank Act, and therefore falls under exclusive federal jurisdiction pursuant to s. 91(15) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The applicant did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal found that the matter falls exclusively under federal jurisdiction and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to goods, services, and facilities because of disability during her hospitalization at the respondent hospital.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant had also filed complaints with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario regarding some of the same incidents.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the parties to provide written submissions on whether the application should be deferred pending the completion of the College proceedings.

The applicant requested an order during proceedings to amend her human rights application to add a claim for $10,000 in monetary compensation and to add two individuals as personal respondents.

The respondents did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the proposed personal respondents were the only employees and co-owners of the organizational respondent, and their individual conduct in allegedly refusing service was central to the issues.

The Tribunal also allowed the amendment to increase the monetary claim, noting no prejudice to the respondents.

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

The Tribunal sent multiple requests to the applicant to provide mutually agreeable dates to reschedule a summary hearing and to confirm her intentions with respect to the application.

The applicant failed to respond to any of the Tribunal's correspondence.

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

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 requested an order during proceedings to amend her human rights application to include allegations of discrimination because of disability.

The original application alleged reprisal and discrimination based on sexual orientation.

The respondent opposed the amendment, arguing prejudice through additional legal costs.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting the application was in its early stages, the new allegations related generally to the existing claims of employment discrimination, and responding would not require substantial new investigation.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application for delay.

He argued that his former representative was responsible for the late filing and that he was unaware delay was an issue until the dismissal decision was released.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide evidence supporting his claim of ignorance regarding the delay issue, noting his signed Reply addressed the issue.

The request for reconsideration was denied as the applicant did not meet the threshold criteria under Rule 26.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing, citing his inability to proceed after the Human Rights Legal Support Centre declined to represent him and asserting illness without medical documentation.

The respondent opposed the request, noting the age of the file and prejudice to its defence.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding no exceptional circumstances, as the applicant had ample time to retain counsel.

The Tribunal also ordered the applicant to comply with previous orders regarding the disclosure of medical records and the provision of witness and document lists, warning that failure to do so could result in the dismissal of the Application for abuse of process.

In a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability, the respondent school board requested an order to exclude the applicant's treating physician from testifying or, alternatively, to compel production of his medical records and records from other community agencies.

The Tribunal permitted the applicant to call the physician as an expert witness, ordered the production of the physician's records for a specified timeframe, and scheduled a teleconference to hear oral submissions regarding the production of records from other agencies.

The applicant failed to comply with a Case Assessment Direction requiring him to file his arguably relevant documents by a specified deadline, despite being warned that failure to do so would result in the dismissal of his applications without further notice.

Given the applicant's lengthy history of non-compliance and the time and resources expended by the respondents, the Tribunal dismissed the four applications.

The Tribunal also denied the individual respondent's request for legal costs, noting it lacks jurisdiction to order such costs.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to add the respondent's president as an individual respondent and a numbered company as an organizational respondent.

The Tribunal applied the Smyth test and found no compelling reason to add the individual respondent, as there were no allegations of harassment or actions outside the scope of employment for which the organizational respondent would not be vicariously liable.

The Tribunal also found an inadequate basis to add the numbered company, instead directing the respondent to clarify its legal identity.

The request was denied.