HRTO 2013

The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision dismissing her human rights application due to her failure to comply with the Tribunal's directions.

The applicant argued there was new medical evidence and that the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence.

The Tribunal found the medical note was not new evidence and the decision did not conflict with jurisprudence regarding non-compliance with directions.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination based on record of offences.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the applicant had not described a conviction for an offence for which a pardon was granted.

The applicant submitted that he was denied employment due to a provincial offence for underage drinking in public, for which he paid a fine.

The Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that it lacked jurisdiction, as a provincial offence falls within the Code's definition of record of offences.

The application was permitted to proceed.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the allegations did not clearly relate to the Code and appeared to be filed outside the one-year limitation period.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice, and the Application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant requested reconsideration, stating she had asked for the matter to be put on hold while she pursued a civil action.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide submissions on the limitation period, the application of the Code, and the effect of her civil action under section 34(11) of the Code.

The applicant refused to provide the requested information.

The Tribunal denied the Request for Reconsideration, finding the refusal to provide information was an abuse of process and the Application was out of time.

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

The respondents requested that the application be deferred pending the resolution of three outstanding grievances related to ergonomic recommendations, workload assignments, and skill development.

The Tribunal found that the issues in the application and the grievances overlapped significantly.

To avoid the risk of inconsistent decisions, the Tribunal ordered that the application be deferred until the conclusion of the grievance process.

The applicant filed seven human rights applications against former co-workers.

The applicant's former employer, Lakehead University, filed a request to intervene, arguing that the applications were an abuse of process because they were barred by a release in previously executed Minutes of Settlement.

The Tribunal granted the University's request to intervene, finding it had a direct interest in the proceedings and the remedies sought.

The Tribunal ordered the parties to file the Minutes of Settlement and directed that a summary hearing be scheduled to determine whether the applications should be dismissed as an abuse of process, for having no reasonable prospect of success, or due to delay.

The applicants, who identify as atheists, alleged that the respondent school board discriminated against them on the basis of creed by permitting only the Gideons to distribute religious literature (the New Testament) to grade five students.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario held that atheism falls within the definition of 'creed' under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the board's original policy, which allowed only one religious group to distribute texts, was discriminatory.

Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that the board's revised policy, which ostensibly allowed other groups to distribute materials but was applied inconsistently and restrictively, also failed to comply with the Code.

The Tribunal ordered the board to cease distributing religious publications unless it developed a new, non-discriminatory policy.

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

The applicant alleged that the adjudicator treated him unfairly by not allowing him to make legal arguments and that the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5, as he did not provide new evidence, demonstrate a conflict with established jurisprudence, or show other factors outweighing the public interest in finality.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex and disability, relating to events that occurred in the late 1990s and her termination in May 2000.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application was filed more than 13 years after the last alleged incident.

Although the applicant provided medical evidence of a mental health disability and hospitalizations between 1999 and 2006, she did not establish that she was incapable of filing the application for the entire 13-year period.

The Tribunal found no good faith explanation for the delay and dismissed the application as out of time.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to reactivate a deferred human rights application.

The Tribunal granted the reactivation and ordered the respondents to file a full response.

Three of the respondents filed a response, but the individual respondent Chis did not.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the non-responding respondent that failure to file a response within 14 days could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming her 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 (NOID) because 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 filed an application alleging discrimination in employment and reprisal.

The respondent filed a Response and requested the application be dismissed for delay and lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to file a Reply or respond to the respondent's request.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to indicate his intentions, warning that failure to do so could result in dismissal.

The applicant did not respond.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

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 directing the 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 a human rights application against the respondent.

The respondent failed to file a Response by the deadline.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent of the consequences of failing to participate and granting a 14-day extension to file a Response with an explanation for the delay.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability and age.

The respondents filed a response requesting dismissal on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to respond to the request to dismiss by a specified deadline, warning that failure to do so could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment.

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

The Tribunal sent multiple letters directing the applicant to advise whether she intended to proceed with the application, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant did not respond.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant requested an order during proceedings to amend her human rights application to include a claim for reprisal, additional remedies, and an allegation that the respondent failed to properly investigate her complaint.

The respondent consented to the reprisal and remedies amendments but opposed the failure to investigate allegation.

The Tribunal allowed all amendments, finding that the failure to investigate allegation relied on facts already pleaded, would not cause substantial delay, and would not prejudice the respondent.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal discriminated against her based on family status and disability by failing to offer to pay for child care so she could attend her appeal hearing in person.

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

The Tribunal found that the application was barred by the common law doctrine of judicial immunity, as the respondent tribunal's decision to permit the applicant to participate by teleconference was a procedural ruling made in the course of exercising its quasi-judicial functions.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing on the basis that he had recently retained counsel who required time to review the file.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that its Practice Direction requires exceptional circumstances for late adjournments.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had ample time to obtain legal representation and failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order during Proceedings seeking to reactivate her deferred human rights application, amend the application, and obtain a production order for certain documents.

The Tribunal granted the request to reactivate the application as the related Employment Standards Act claim had concluded.

The Tribunal declined to address the amendment request due to a lack of particulars and dismissed the production request as premature under Rule 16 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant, a Seventh-day Adventist, applied for a New Business Clerk position at the respondent's call centre.

During a telephone pre-screen interview, she informed the recruiter that she could not work on Saturdays due to her religious beliefs.

The applicant was subsequently screened out and not offered an in-person interview.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's creed was a factor in the respondent's decision not to advance her in the hiring process, drawing an adverse inference from the respondent's failure to produce documents relating to other candidates.

The Tribunal awarded the applicant $4,000 in damages for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.