HRTO 2013

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

The respondent failed to file a response by the deadline.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondent to file a response within 10 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 respondent requested that the human rights application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that decisions by WSIB case managers appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal noted that this raises significant issues regarding the interpretation of section 45.1 in light of recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision scheduling a hearing to hear oral submissions on whether the application should be dismissed under section 45.1 or the doctrines of issue estoppel, collateral attack, or abuse of process.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to reactivate his human rights application, which had previously been deferred pending the completion of grievance proceedings.

The applicant argued that the grievance arbitration was delayed and his life was on hold.

The respondents opposed the request, noting that the arbitration hearing was ongoing and the parties were awaiting a decision on preliminary issues.

The Tribunal found that the grievance process was still ongoing and dismissed the request, ordering that the application remain deferred until the conclusion of the arbitration process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of family status after his employment was terminated following a one-year parental leave.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application had already been dealt with in a prior Employment Standards Act (ESA) claim.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the Employment Standards Officer had not addressed whether the termination was related to the applicant's family status, and therefore the ESA proceeding did not appropriately deal with the substance of the human rights application.

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

The respondents failed to file a response by the directed deadline.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondents that failure to participate could lead to orders against them without further notice, pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondents were granted 14 days to file a response along with an explanation for the delay.

The applicant, a self-represented single mother of African Caribbean descent, alleged that the respondent Children's Aid Society and its caseworker discriminated and reprised against her during the apprehension of her children.

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

The Tribunal found that while the applicant genuinely believed she was treated unfairly due to her race and family status, she could not point to any evidence beyond mere speculation to link the respondents' actions to Code-protected grounds.

The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The respondents requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because a key witness was unavailable due to a religious pilgrimage, and also requested the removal of the personal respondent.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, ordering the hearing to proceed as scheduled with the option to hear the unavailable witness at a later date if necessary.

The Tribunal also denied the request to remove the personal respondent, finding that his individual conduct was a central issue in the allegations of discrimination based on disability.

The applicant, who was self-represented, requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing due to financial constraints preventing her from retaining counsel.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding no extraordinary circumstances to warrant a departure from its normal practice, as the applicant had ample time to obtain representation since filing the application.

The Tribunal also directed the applicant to immediately file the required hearing documents and witness statements, warning that failure to do so within seven days could result in her being barred from calling witnesses at the hearing.

During a hearing on the merits of sexual harassment allegations by migrant workers, the respondent requested production of correspondence and notes between the intervenor's counsel and its expert witness.

The intervenor objected on the basis of litigation privilege and untimeliness.

The Tribunal ordered partial production, guided by civil case law, requiring disclosure of instructions, foundational notes, prior drafts, and foundational correspondence, but protecting other communications under litigation privilege.

The applicant sought to amend his human rights application to add new allegations of discrimination shortly before the scheduled hearing.

The Tribunal denied the request to amend, finding that the applicant had the necessary information to raise the allegations much earlier and that allowing the amendment at this late stage would cause significant prejudice to the respondents.

The Tribunal also issued orders regarding hearing management, including bifurcating the hearing into liability and remedy phases, setting time estimates for witness testimony, and permitting the applicant to transcribe the hearing at his own expense.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, approximately six years after his employment was terminated.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss due to the delay.

The applicant argued the delay was caused by his visual impairment and a lack of readily available legal counsel in his town.

The Tribunal found these reasons did not constitute a good faith explanation for a six-year delay and dismissed the application as out of time.

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

The respondent and the applicant raised issues involving the applicant's union, Service Employees International Union, Local 1 Canada.

The Tribunal provided the union an opportunity to request intervenor status.

The union filed a request to intervene, which was unopposed.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene, noting that a bargaining agent nearly always has an interest in a human rights application brought by a represented employee alleging discrimination in employment.

The applicant, a taxi driver, alleged discrimination by the respondents for prohibiting him and other drivers from accessing the washrooms at the Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport's Passenger Transfer Facility.

The respondents requested dismissal on the basis that the matter falls under federal jurisdiction.

Noting that the applicant had filed an identical complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC), the Tribunal declined to dismiss the Application on jurisdictional grounds at this stage and instead deferred the Application pending the conclusion of the CHRC proceeding.

The applicant, a student with multiple exceptionalities including a mild intellectual disability and ADHD, alleged discrimination by the respondent school board.

The Tribunal found that the respondent failed to accommodate the applicant's disability-related needs by significantly reducing his educational assistant support without an objective assessment, failing to implement a timely behaviour management plan, and excluding him from school for an extended period without adequate educational programming.

The Tribunal also found that the respondent's imposition of a permanent communication ban on the applicant's mother hindered the accommodation process.

The respondent failed to establish that accommodating the applicant would cause undue hardship.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay $35,000 in compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and directed the implementation of specific accommodations and the lifting of the communication ban.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the Application for lack of jurisdiction because it did not set out specific incidents of alleged discrimination related to a Code ground.

The applicant filed written submissions in response, alleging discrimination on the basis of sex under section 23 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the Application fell outside its jurisdiction and declined to dismiss it at this stage, ordering the Application to be delivered to the respondent.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to goods, services, and facilities based on disability.

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation and subsequently failed to respond to the Tribunal's direction to advise whether he intended to proceed with the application.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination.

The union requested intervenor status, which was granted as its interests were at stake.

The applicant requested to defer the application indefinitely for personal reasons.

The Tribunal dismissed the deferral request, finding no other proceeding was dealing with the matter and it would not delay the process indefinitely.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment in employment based on sex and sexual orientation following his termination.

The applicant's union requested intervenor status, noting it had filed a grievance on his behalf regarding the termination.

The Tribunal granted the union intervenor status, finding it had an interest in the proceeding.

Noting the concurrent grievance arbitration, the Tribunal directed the parties to file submissions on whether the application should be deferred or dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed an Application for Contravention of Settlement, seeking to set aside Minutes of Settlement reached during mediation.

The applicant alleged he signed the settlement under financial duress, misunderstood the monetary amount, and was affected by medication.

The Tribunal found that difficult financial circumstances do not amount to economic duress sufficient to vitiate a contract.

The Tribunal also found insufficient evidence regarding the applicant's medication or lack of capacity.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process, and the settlement remained binding.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code alleging discrimination in accommodation on the basis of disability.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to file a witness list, witness statements, and documents at least 45 days prior to the hearing.

The applicant failed to comply with the direction and did not communicate with the Tribunal to explain the inability to do so.

Upon the respondent's request, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.