HRTO 2013

The applicant, a child with Autism Spectrum Disorder and Global Developmental Disability, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination after being discharged from an intensive behavioural intervention program.

The applicant brought a Request for Order During Proceedings to add the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario (CHEO) as a respondent, after learning from the Ministry of Children and Youth Services that CHEO was responsible for determining eligibility for the program.

Applying the Smyth test, the Tribunal granted the request, finding that CHEO might share responsibility for the alleged Code violations and that it would be fair to add them as a respondent.

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

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the applicant to file written consent or submissions regarding the respondent's use and disclosure of her personal health information, warning that failure to do so could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant failed to respond to the interim decision and a subsequent email from the Tribunal.

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

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

After a mediation was rescheduled, the Tribunal made multiple attempts to contact the applicant to obtain mutually agreeable dates.

The applicant failed to respond to emails and letters, including a final warning letter sent to her correct address.

As the applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's communications, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, specifically a failure to accommodate a work-related injury.

The respondent employer requested that the application be deferred because the applicant's union had already initiated an internal failure to accommodate complaint that was proceeding to binding mediation/arbitration.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the mediation/arbitration process to avoid concurrent proceedings dealing with the same issues.

The applicant sought to amend his human rights application, originally concerning events in 2010, to include numerous allegations from 2012 and 2013.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding it would significantly alter the nature of the application and be unfair to the respondent given the proximity to the scheduled hearing.

The Tribunal also deferred a request by the respondent to order the destruction of protected student records, directing that the documents be sealed.

Finally, the Tribunal denied the applicant's request to adjourn the hearing, noting that retaining counsel shortly before a hearing does not constitute an extraordinary circumstance.

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

The parties consented to mediation, but the applicant failed to attend the scheduled mediation.

The Tribunal subsequently sent a letter and email requesting the applicant to advise whether she intended to proceed with her application, warning that failure to respond might result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant did not respond.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to add the Board of Governors of Exhibition Place as a respondent to a human rights application alleging discrimination in services based on race and colour.

The proposed respondent consented to being added, confirming it is responsible for security services at the relevant location and employs the security guards involved in the incident.

The Tribunal granted the request, added the respondent, and set a timeline for pleadings.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing after his legal counsel ceased representing him six weeks before the hearing date.

The respondents opposed the request.

The Tribunal noted its practice of granting adjournments only in exceptional circumstances.

Given the complexity of the case, which included seven volumes of documents and 32 potential witnesses, and the applicant's prompt request upon losing counsel, the Tribunal found exceptional circumstances existed.

The adjournment was granted in part, with the first scheduled date converted to a case management hearing.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment because of disability.

After mediation failed, a hearing was scheduled and the parties were directed to file documents and witness lists.

The applicant failed to file any documents.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to confirm his intention to participate in the hearing.

The applicant failed to respond to the direction.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision dismissing his application, alleging bias, incompetence, and hostility by the adjudicator.

The Tribunal found that the applicant provided no details to support his allegation of bias and failed to meet the threshold criteria for reconsideration under the Tribunal's Rules.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application against his former employer more than one year after the last alleged incident of discrimination.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for delay, to which the applicant did not respond.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's explanations of being busy with school and work, and ignorance of the time limit, did not constitute good faith reasons for the delay under section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed as untimely.

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

A summary hearing was scheduled to address the respondent's request to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

Prior to the hearing, the applicant requested an adjournment, claiming his evidence was destroyed and he had a skin infection.

The Tribunal advised that the adjournment request would be dealt with at the hearing.

The applicant failed to attend the teleconference hearing.

After providing the applicant an opportunity to explain his absence, the Tribunal found his explanation insufficient and dismissed the application for failure to attend.

The applicant requested reconsideration of an interim decision that denied an expedited hearing and directed a summary hearing.

The applicant also alleged that the adjudicator was biased because he graduated from the respondent university's law school.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that the interim decision was not a final decision and therefore could not be reconsidered.

The Tribunal also dismissed the bias claim, concluding that a reasonable person would not apprehend bias based merely on the adjudicator having obtained a graduate degree from the respondent's law school many years prior.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment based on race and ethnic origin.

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation and subsequently failed to respond to a Tribunal direction inquiring whether she intended to proceed with the application.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision to seek the anonymization of his name in the style of cause.

He argued that his uncommon name and the mention of his disability could lead to stigmatization.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, emphasizing the fundamental principle of an open justice system and noting that the previous decision did not specify the nature of his disability.

The Tribunal found no exceptional circumstances to justify departing from its usual practice of publicizing parties' names.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sex and disability discrimination, sexual harassment, and reprisal by her employer and the Chief of Police.

The respondents requested that allegations predating September 2011 be dismissed as untimely and that the personal respondent be removed.

The applicant sought to amend her application and requested document production.

The Tribunal dismissed the pre-September 2011 allegations as untimely, finding they did not form a series of incidents with the timely allegations.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to amend her application, dismissed her production request as premature, and refused to remove the personal respondent because his individual conduct was a central issue.

The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination based on race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, and ethnic origin.

The respondent filed a Request for Summary Hearing, which the Tribunal denied without reasons pursuant to Rule 19A.5.

The Tribunal also deferred deciding the applicant's request for document production until the parties filed their intended documents, and directed the scheduling of a case management conference call.

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

The respondent failed to file a Response by the deadline set in the Notice of Application.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent of the consequences of failing to participate under Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, and granted the respondent a final 14 days to file a Response with an explanation for the delay.

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

The parties consented to mediation, but a dispute arose regarding the location.

The Tribunal sent multiple communications to the applicant requesting his position on holding the mediation in Ottawa, warning that failure to respond could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond by the specified deadlines.

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

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability regarding the suspension of her driver's license for medical reasons and her subsequent efforts to have the suspension lifted.

The respondent argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because section 19 of O. Reg. 340/94 under the Highway Traffic Act exempts medical license suspensions from the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal held that it had jurisdiction over allegations concerning events prior to January 1, 2011, because the regulatory amendment exempting disability-related decisions only came into effect on that date and could not be applied retroactively.

However, the Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction over events occurring after January 1, 2011.