HRTO 2013

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability after his doctor terminated the doctor-patient relationship.

The application was filed almost two years after the last incident.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed for delay.

Finding that the applicant failed to establish a good faith explanation for the delay, the Tribunal dismissed the application as out of time.

The respondents filed a Request for an Order During Proceeding, seeking to either require the applicant to amend his Application to include new allegations raised in his Reply, or to permit the respondents to amend their Response to address those new allegations.

The applicant consented to the respondents amending their Response.

The Tribunal found that allowing the respondents to amend their Response was the most practical approach and granted the request.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding against the Toronto Police Services Board and her former landlord filed multiple Requests for Order During Proceedings seeking further document production.

The Tribunal applied the 'arguable relevance' test and ordered the police to disclose background checks completed on the applicant during the relevant timeframes, as they may have influenced her treatment.

The Tribunal denied requests for police officers' unredacted notes, communications outside the relevant timeframe, and the landlord's medical records, citing lack of relevance and privacy concerns.

The Tribunal also directed the parties to refrain from filing further production requests until after the applicant's evidence is heard.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal based on disability.

The respondents requested the removal of the individual respondents and the amendment of the application to exclude references to certain e-mail messages.

The applicant requested an order for document disclosure.

The Tribunal denied the respondents' request, finding compelling reasons to keep the individual respondents as parties and noting the e-mails were arguably relevant.

The Tribunal also denied the applicant's request for disclosure as premature.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on race, colour, age, and association following his expulsion from school after an altercation.

The respondent school board requested that the application be consolidated with two other applications arising from the same incident and referred to a summary hearing.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that a summary hearing was necessary to determine if the applicant could establish a link between the alleged grounds and the expulsion, and that hearing the applications together would avoid a multiplicity of proceedings and inconsistent results.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging racial discrimination by a taxi driver and company more than eight months after the one-year statutory time limit.

The applicant argued the delay was in good faith because he was attempting to obtain the driver's name through criminal disclosure and freedom of information requests.

The Tribunal found that while the initial delay might have been in good faith, the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for waiting an additional three months and three weeks to file the application after his freedom of information request was denied.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment.

The Tribunal issued an Interim Decision and a Case Assessment Direction ordering the applicant to file hearing materials and confirm attendance at the scheduled hearing, warning that failure to comply could result in dismissal.

The applicant failed to comply with the orders.

The Tribunal found the application to be abandoned and dismissed it, cancelling the scheduled hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that the respondent's Request Stop Program was discriminatory because it was only available to women.

Shortly before the hearing, the applicant conceded the program was a valid special program under the Code and sought to change his case to allege that the individual bus operator engaged in racial profiling when refusing his request for a stop.

The Tribunal refused the amendment, finding that allowing the applicant to advance a completely different case 18 months after filing the application would be highly prejudicial and unfair to the respondent.

The respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking dismissal of the human rights application.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to respond.

The applicant failed to respond within the required timeframe.

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

The applicant sought reconsideration of an interim decision that denied her request for an interim remedy to expedite her human rights application prior to an eviction proceeding.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, noting that Rule 26 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure only permits reconsideration of final decisions, not interim ones.

Furthermore, the Tribunal noted it lacks the authority to review or stay the eviction order issued by the Superior Court of Justice.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, age, and reprisal, claiming that exposure to second-hand smoke in the 1990s caused a stroke in 2000, and that the respondents failed to resolve his subsequent grievances.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding that the allegations regarding events prior to 2000 were out of time and that there was no reasonable prospect of success for the remaining allegations of discrimination and reprisal.

The applicants, who were employed by contractors at the respondent's worksite, alleged discrimination with respect to employment because of disability.

The respondent requested that the applications be dismissed at a summary hearing for having no reasonable prospect of success, arguing that the applicants were removed from the worksite for failing to comply with its drug and alcohol policy.

The Tribunal found that the applications could not be dismissed at this preliminary stage, as the applicants' allegations regarding the circumstances of the testing requests could potentially shift the burden to the respondent to explain its actions.

The Tribunal also found merit in the argument that the respondent's policy affected the applicants' employment, despite the respondent not being their direct employer.

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

A summary hearing was scheduled to determine if the application should be dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.

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

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned without considering its merits.

The applicant, a nurse, alleged that her employer and the nursing regulatory college discriminated against her and engaged in reprisal.

The employer placed the applicant on medical leave after she exhibited concerning behaviour and made allegations of patient abuse.

The college subsequently suspended her certificate of registration after finding her incapacitated due to a psychotic disorder.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding it had no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant's reprisal claims failed because reporting patient abuse is not an enforcement of a human rights right, and her disability discrimination claims failed because the employer's actions in placing her on leave due to perceived incapacity were not discriminatory.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in the provision of goods and services.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to file a witness list, witness statements, and documents pursuant to Rules 16 and 17, warning that failure to do so could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to comply with the directions or communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

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

The Tribunal directed the parties to exchange and file pre-hearing materials.

The applicant failed to file the required materials and did not respond to a subsequent Case Assessment Direction warning that the application might be dismissed.

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

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application.

He alleged that the adjudicator failed to properly consider his evidence, favoured the respondents during the hearing, and was biased due to being appointed by a Liberal government and being a white Anglo-Saxon.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that disagreement with the decision is not a ground for reconsideration, the hearing was conducted fairly, and the allegations of bias did not meet the legal test for a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The applicant filed an application alleging disability discrimination and failure to accommodate by the respondent employer.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because the applicant had also filed grievances under a collective agreement based on the same facts and issues.

The Tribunal found that proceeding with the application could lead to inconsistent decisions and deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance proceedings.

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

The parties reached a tentative settlement but failed to file a Form 25 confirming the settlement.

After the applicant failed to respond to multiple Tribunal directions and communications requesting a status update or the settlement form, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to remove the corporate respondent, which had been placed into receivership, and to continue the human rights application against the individual respondents.

The Tribunal granted the request to remove the corporate respondent and allowed the application to proceed against the individual respondents for alleged harassment.

However, noting that the applicant may be unable to prove discrimination, the Tribunal directed on its own initiative that a summary hearing be held to determine if the application has a reasonable prospect of success.