HRTO 2013

The applicant filed a human rights application while a concurrent union grievance proceeding involving the same facts was ongoing.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the resolution of the grievance.

The applicant did not file a reply to the deferral request.

The Tribunal found that deferral was the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed, as the grievance process was initiated first, involved the same issues, and the arbitrator had the authority to apply the Human Rights Code.

The application was deferred.

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

The respondent subsequently filed for bankruptcy, resulting in a Notice of Stay of Proceedings.

The Tribunal previously issued interim decisions holding the application in abeyance.

As the stay of proceedings remains in effect, the Tribunal ordered that the application continue to be held in abeyance and directed the applicant to provide an update within one year.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the narrative failed to identify specific acts of discrimination.

After the applicant provided incomplete information, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring further submissions.

The applicant failed to respond within the required time.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the application on the basis that it appeared to be outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice by the specified deadline.

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

The respondents requested that the human rights applications be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code on the basis that the applicants' prior public complaints under the Police Services Act appropriately dealt with the substance of the applications.

The Tribunal considered the Supreme Court of Canada's decisions in Figliola and Penner.

The Tribunal held that section 45.1 should not be interpreted to bar a Code application where doing so would result in an affront to basic principles of fairness.

Given the lack of personal remedies in the police disciplinary process and the broader policy implications, the Tribunal found it would be unfair to preclude the applicants from pursuing their human rights claims.

The respondents' requests to dismiss the applications were denied, and the applications were allowed to proceed.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondents.

A hearing was scheduled, and the Notice of Hearing was delivered to the applicant's paralegal representative.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing.

The Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant had notice of the hearing and deemed the application abandoned.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a Black father, alleged that the respondent school board discriminated against him on the basis of race when a teacher reported his daughter's disclosures about her home environment to the Children's Aid Society.

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

The Tribunal found that the teacher was statutorily mandated to report the disclosure under the Children and Family Services Act and followed board guidelines.

The applicant provided no evidence beyond bald assertions to support his claim that the report was racially motivated.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as having no reasonable prospect of success and found it was statutorily barred by section 72(7) of the Children and Family Services Act.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend her human rights application to include the ground of reprisal.

The original application alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of pregnancy and disability.

The respondent did not file a response to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, noting that the amendment did not change the substance of the application and would not prejudice the respondent.

The parties requested an amendment to a May 9, 2012 consent order that had finally disposed of the human rights complaint.

Due to an error by counsel, the order and minutes of settlement did not reflect the parties' agreement that parts of the complaint not relating to intensive behavioural intervention (IBI) would proceed.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend the order to allow the non-IBI parts of the complaint to proceed, waived the 30-day delay for making such a request, and set a schedule for next steps, including addressing the complainant's capacity to conduct litigation now that he is over 18.

The applicant requested an order during the proceeding to amend her human rights application to include an allegation of reprisal regarding a telephone conversation.

The respondent did not file a response to the request.

The Tribunal granted the amendment, noting it was made many months in advance of the hearing, and directed the respondent to file a response to the new allegation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sexual harassment and reprisals by her employer and several individuals.

The applicant had also filed a union grievance concerning the same facts.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the application pending the conclusion of the grievance proceeding.

Finding that the grievance process was ongoing, involved the same facts and issues, and that the arbitrator had the authority to apply the Human Rights Code, the Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application.

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 despite being granted an extension of time.

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

The applicant requested an interim remedy to prevent the respondent from liquidating assets and a request to expedite the hearing, alleging the respondent was organizing his affairs to leave the country.

The Tribunal denied the interim remedy request but granted the request to expedite the hearing, noting the respondent did not deny the allegations in the application and the only issue in dispute appeared to be the appropriate remedy.

The applicant requested to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of her Employment Standards Act claim.

The Tribunal granted the request to reactivate, noting that the ESA process was completed and a decision had been rendered.

The respondent was directed to file a Response within 35 days.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to housing because of marital status.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to respond to the respondent's request to dismiss the application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant failed to respond by the deadline.

As a result, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

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

After requesting to reschedule a mediation, the applicant failed to respond to multiple communications from the Tribunal requesting available dates and confirming her intentions.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a previous decision that dismissed his human rights application for abuse of process due to his manner of communication.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant merely restated his previous arguments regarding his disability and his negative opinions of the respondents, without establishing any of the required grounds for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal after being banned from the respondents' medical clinic.

The applicant had also filed complaints with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario and the College of Nurses of Ontario regarding the same incidents, and subsequently appealed to the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB).

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the HPARB proceedings.

The Tribunal found significant overlap in the factual issues and deferred the application to avoid the possibility of inconsistent decisions.

The applicant, a bus driver, alleged discrimination and reprisal after being dismissed for using a corporate credit card for personal expenses.

She claimed her dismissal was retaliation for a lengthy absence due to a workplace injury and that the WSIB's delays caused her extended absence.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application.

It found that the employer and union were federally regulated entities outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction, and that the applicant failed to point to any evidence connecting the WSIB's actions to a prohibited ground of discrimination.

The respondent brought a preliminary request to dismiss the human rights application for delay.

The applicant alleged the respondent failed to accommodate her disability by refusing to offer modified work in 2006, 2008, and 2009.

The Tribunal found that the 2009 allegation was timely, but the 2006 and 2008 allegations occurred more than a year prior to the application.

The Tribunal held that the significant three-year gap between the 2006 and 2009 events broke any temporal connection, meaning they did not constitute a series of incidents under section 34(1)(b) of the Code.

The untimely allegations were dismissed.