HRTO 2013

The applicants, a mother and daughter, filed separate human rights applications regarding the mother's use of a service animal at the respondents' restaurant.

The respondents failed to file Responses to the applications.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision granting the respondents 14 days to file Responses and explain their delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without them.

The Tribunal also ordered that the two applications be heard together due to common issues of fact and law.

The applicant, a volunteer with the respondent, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

She claimed she was treated unfairly by a coordinator who failed to notify her of event cancellations, denied her travel expenses, and mistreated her.

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

The Tribunal found that while the applicant alleged differential and unfair treatment, she failed to establish any link between the treatment and her disability.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability, race, and colour.

Following an interim decision that required the applicant to provide medical documentation to establish his disability, the applicant explicitly refused to comply with the Tribunal's directions.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the lack of medical evidence meant there was no reasonable prospect of success and that permitting the application to continue in the face of the applicant's persistent refusal to comply with directions would constitute an abuse of process.

In an ongoing human rights proceeding, both parties filed Requests for Order.

The applicant sought to amend his Application to revive his original claims, add a personal respondent, and clarify remedies, as well as seeking further document production from the respondent and the union.

The respondent sought an order requiring the applicant to sign consents for the release of medical records and to produce original medical notes.

The Tribunal denied the applicant's request to revive his original Application and add a personal respondent, but allowed the amendment regarding remedies.

The Tribunal ordered the union to produce any relevant meeting notes, but denied further production from the respondent.

The Tribunal granted the respondent's request, ordering the applicant to sign medical consents and produce original medical notes for inspection.

The applicant, an 84-year-old investor, alleged that the respondents discriminated against him on the basis of age by using age as a factor when recommending against his leveraged investment strategy.

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

The Tribunal found that considering age as one factor among others (such as net worth, income, and risk tolerance) to match investment advice with the lived reality of the investor does not constitute substantive discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

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

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his application for lack of jurisdiction and as an abuse of process.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish any of the threshold criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26, such as new facts, conflict with established jurisprudence, or other factors outweighing the public interest in finality.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant filed an application alleging the respondent contravened a settlement agreement.

The application was filed more than six months after the alleged contravention.

The Tribunal found that the applicant provided no reasons for the delay other than an absence of bad faith, which is insufficient to establish good faith under s. 45.9(4) of the Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed for delay.

The applicant, a high school student, sought an interim remedy to allow her to play interschool sports at her new French-language school, despite a Transfer Policy that restricted her eligibility for one year.

She alleged the policy discriminated on the basis of ancestry, place of origin, citizenship, ethnic origin, and age.

The Tribunal denied the request for an interim remedy, finding serious doubt about its jurisdiction because the Code's definition of age is restricted to persons 18 years or older, and the applicant's claim relied on a constitutional challenge to that definition.

The respondents in a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability requested an interim order for the production of the applicant's medical records and OHIP summary, as well as an extension of time for document production.

The Tribunal ordered the production of medical records related to the claimed disabilities for the relevant period, finding them arguably relevant to the issue of accommodation and remedy.

The Tribunal denied the request for the OHIP summary as unnecessarily duplicative and overly broad.

The request for an extension of time was granted on consent.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of an interim decision that dismissed his allegations of age discrimination regarding the operation of the employer's health care benefit and life insurance plans after he turned 65.

The applicant argued that as a police officer, the Employment Standards Act did not apply to him, and therefore the exemption in section 25 of the Human Rights Code should not apply.

The Tribunal denied the request for reconsideration, finding that the interim decision's interpretation of section 25 of the Code was correct and that importing the ESA's exclusions into the Code would lead to incongruous results.

The applicant, who has claustrophobia and irritable bowel syndrome, alleged that the respondent travel agency discriminated against her by refusing to provide further services after she disclosed her disabilities and requested an aisle seat near the front of the plane for future travel.

The respondent claimed it denied services because the applicant was combative and demanding, and denied knowledge of her disabilities.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence credible and concluded that her disclosure of her disabilities was a factor in the respondent's decision to deny services, thereby breaching section 1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal also found that the respondent breached its procedural duty to accommodate by failing to inquire into the applicant's needs or consider accommodation options when she subsequently called to ask why she was denied services.

The Tribunal awarded the applicant $5,000 as compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous decision that declared him a vexatious litigant and required him to obtain leave before filing future applications.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's submissions merely reiterated his dissatisfaction with previous decisions and his opinions about the respondents and adjudicators.

As the applicant failed to identify any new facts, evidence, or other factors that would provide a basis for reconsideration under the Tribunal's Rules, the request was denied.

The applicant requested an order to reconsider and set aside a previous interim decision that dismissed certain allegations as untimely, to amend the application, to consolidate it with another application, and to adjourn the upcoming hearing.

The Tribunal denied all requests, finding no grounds for reconsideration, noting that the proposed amendments would prejudice the respondent and delay the hearing, finding no basis to consolidate with a deferred application, and concluding that a recent change of counsel did not constitute exceptional circumstances warranting an adjournment.

The applicant alleged that he and his wife were denied the opportunity to view a rental apartment and were harassed by the respondent's security guard based on their race, age, and association with a person identified by a Code-protected ground.

The Tribunal found that the respondent had a credible, non-discriminatory explanation for not showing the apartment, namely that the rental agent was busy with pressing professional and personal obligations and the applicants did not have an appointment.

The Tribunal also found that a single comment by the security guard regarding the price of the units did not amount to harassment under the Code.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought to reactivate and amend his human rights application against the Toronto Police Service following his acquittal on criminal charges.

The Tribunal granted the request to reactivate the application.

The Tribunal allowed amendments detailing the original allegations of discriminatory police treatment and an increased monetary claim, but denied proposed amendments regarding the applicant's experiences in detention and the conduct of Crown prosecutors, finding them outside the scope of the original application.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend her human rights application to add a claim for reprisal and clarify the remedies sought, including $40,000 in general damages and $6,000 for lost wages.

The respondent did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal allowed the amendments, finding that the application was at an early stage, no new facts were raised, and there was no prejudice to the respondent.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination based on race, colour, and reprisal.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a previous decision denying a request to expedite the hearing.

The Tribunal denied the reconsideration request, noting that reconsideration is only available for final decisions.

On its own initiative, the Tribunal directed a summary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success, citing potential issues with timeliness, lack of a link to Code grounds, and insufficient evidence of reprisal.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed case management issues.

The applicant's vague request for an order to add parties was denied for lack of information.

The respondent's request to adjourn the hearing due to the unavailability of two key witnesses was also denied, as the Tribunal found no exceptional circumstances to justify an adjournment.

The Tribunal further ordered both parties to comply with document disclosure and witness list rules.

The applicant requested reconsideration of an interim decision that dismissed part of his human rights application under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code due to a concurrent civil claim.

The applicant argued that the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence because the failure of the civil claim would defeat the Code claim.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that section 34(11) is a mandatory jurisdictional bar and the Tribunal cannot consider the potential outcome of the civil litigation.

The Tribunal also declined the applicant's request to clarify that past procedural failures were the fault of his former counsel.

The applicant filed a Request for Order during Proceedings to amend her Application to increase the monetary compensation sought from $10,000 to $25,000, and a Request to Expedite Proceedings.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, finding no prejudice to the respondent.

The Tribunal denied the request to expedite, as the applicant failed to provide the required declaration or explain how her financial need or disability constituted urgent circumstances affecting the fair resolution of the matter.