HRTO 2013

The applicant filed a human rights application using a fictional name, alleging that the respondent's 'burger family' menu names were discriminatory and degrading to non-traditional families.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide identification.

The applicant refused, admitting the application was a parody intended to mock human rights systems, and requested to proceed under a pseudonym.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it was an abuse of process, outside its jurisdiction, and that the applicant failed to provide identification.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of disability.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because there were ongoing grievance proceedings before the Grievance Settlement Board related to the same issues and events.

The respondents supported deferral, and the applicant did not file submissions.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance proceeding, noting that arbitrators have the power and responsibility to deal with the Code in relation to grievances.

The applicant, a former student in a university education program, alleged discrimination on the basis of race, sex, marital status, and other grounds, claiming a conspiracy by faculty members to fail him in his practicum after he refused sexual advances.

Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal found the applicant's testimony lacked credibility and was inconsistent with the documentary evidence.

The Tribunal concluded that the allegations had no reasonable prospect of success and dismissed the application.

The applicant requested the reactivation of his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the outcome of a union grievance regarding a three-day disciplinary suspension.

The applicant argued that no such grievance existed, while the respondent maintained that the grievance was proceeding to arbitration.

The Tribunal found it remained unclear whether the grievance proceeding to arbitration dealt with the suspension in question.

Given the respondent's submission that the grievance would likely be litigated soon, the Tribunal denied the request to reactivate and ordered the application to remain deferred, directing the parties to report on the status of the grievance by a specified date.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding requested to amend her application to include an allegation of discrimination in a hiring decision and to claim further monetary compensation for psychological damage.

The Tribunal denied the request to add the hiring decision allegation, as the applicant was already employed by the respondent at all material times.

The Tribunal deferred the request to amend the remedial claims to the adjudicator hearing the merits of the case, and denied the respondent's request to order the production of further medical records.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

The respondent subsequently went into receivership, and a Notice of Stay of Proceedings was filed.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to advise whether she intended to seek leave to continue the proceeding.

The applicant failed to respond or communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to services because of race and colour, specifically that he was subjected to a racial slur by an employee of the respondent while servicing his home.

The respondent argued that the application falls under federal jurisdiction.

Relying on a previous Tribunal decision involving the same respondent, the Tribunal found that the respondent's operations, including the provision of services by its employees, fall within federal jurisdiction.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

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

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to provide a list of arguably relevant documents and copies to the respondent, warning that failure to do so could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond to the direction within the specified time.

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

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

The applicant's union had also filed a grievance dealing with the same subject matter.

The Tribunal directed the parties to make submissions on whether the application should be deferred pending the outcome of the grievance.

Only the respondent filed submissions, noting that the grievance arbitration had commenced.

The Tribunal deferred the application to avoid concurrent proceedings and the possibility of inconsistent decisions, noting that grievance arbitrators have the power and responsibility to enforce human rights statutes.

The applicant, who has a hearing disability, alleged discrimination and reprisal against a recreational car club regarding its CB radio policy and her subsequent suspension from its online message board.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal ordered the respondent to disclose the names of members who orally complained about the applicant's use of the message board, finding this information arguably relevant to her reprisal allegations.

The Tribunal also set deadlines for witness statements and document disclosure ahead of the hearing.

The applicant filed a Request to reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of an appeal under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act.

The respondents did not file a response to the Request.

The Tribunal granted the Request to reactivate the application and directed the respondents to file their Response within 30 days.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend her human rights application by adding her employer, Ontario Drive & Gear Limited, as a respondent and removing an individual, Randell Thomson.

The Tribunal found that the failure to correctly identify the organizational respondent and the naming of the individual respondent were administrative errors on the application form.

The request to amend the application was granted.

The applicant, who is self-represented, requested an adjournment of a scheduled summary hearing on the basis that she was facing resistance in obtaining personal files from the respondent and a hospital.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant had not established exceptional circumstances as required by the Practice Direction.

The Tribunal noted that no evidence would be required at the summary hearing, which was convened to address legal issues and whether there was a reasonable prospect of success, and therefore the inability to access documents did not justify an adjournment.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking the production of documents in a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability.

The respondent opposed the request as premature.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that under Rule 16, arguably relevant documents must be disclosed within 21 days after a Confirmation of Hearing is sent.

As no Confirmation of Hearing had been issued and no special circumstances existed, the request was premature.

The applicant, a lawyer, filed a human rights application alleging that the Law Society of Upper Canada discriminated against him on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, and ethnic origin during its investigation of a client complaint.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant made bald assertions of discrimination and failed to point to any evidence that could establish differential treatment or a link between the respondent's actions and the protected grounds.

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

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

After the respondent filed a Response, the applicant failed to file a Reply as required by Rule 9.1 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant also failed to comply with a Case Assessment Direction requiring her to file a Reply.

As the applicant made no contact with the Tribunal, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed an application alleging reprisal and discrimination with respect to employment because of sex.

The Tribunal issued an Interim Decision directing the applicant to comply with Rule 16.1 and provide arguably relevant documents to the respondents, warning that failure to do so could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant failed to comply with the direction and the deadline passed.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal regarding the disclosure of his personal health information.

At a summary hearing, the applicant's unpaid friend and representative requested an adjournment because the applicant was hospitalized.

The respondent objected to the adjournment and to the representative acting on the applicant's behalf, citing a conflict of interest.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment due to extraordinary circumstances but disqualified the representative from participating further, finding a real possibility of a conflict of interest arising from the representative's involvement in the underlying events.

The applicant filed a breach of settlement application alleging the respondent failed to provide budget committee materials free of charge, as allegedly required by their previous settlement regarding accommodation for his visual disability.

The Tribunal found that the budget committee was not among the committees specifically listed in the Minutes of Settlement.

Furthermore, the Tribunal interpreted the settlement's reference to changing 'requirements for accommodation' as applying to the applicant's disability-related needs (such as font size), not to a desire for additional free materials.

The application was dismissed.

The respondents requested access to the applicant's medical records held by the hospital's Occupational Health and Safety Department and her WSIB file.

The applicant, who was self-represented, expressed a desire to keep her medical records confidential.

The Tribunal found that because the applicant had put her disability and the respondents' accommodation efforts in issue, the records were relevant.

The Tribunal ordered the disclosure of the records for specific periods, subject to strict confidentiality conditions and a process for the applicant to object to the further disclosure of specific records.