HRTO 2013

The applicant requested to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of proceedings before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The applicant provided the final reconsideration decision of the OLRB.

The respondents did not file a response to the request.

The Tribunal found that the requirements under Rule 14 were met, reactivated the application, and ordered the respondents to file a Response within 35 days.

The applicant, a retail employee, alleged discrimination, harassment, and reprisal on the basis of disability regarding his employer's scheduling practices and his subsequent termination.

At a summary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the scheduling allegations, finding no reasonable prospect of success because the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical documentation to trigger the duty to accommodate his restricted availability.

However, the Tribunal allowed the termination allegations to proceed to a merits hearing, as there were significant factual disputes regarding whether the applicant's conduct was disability-related and whether the termination constituted a reprisal.

The applicant failed to comply with a previous interim decision ordering her to provide particulars regarding a phone call and to produce her telephone records.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to file the required particulars and documents within 7 days, warning that failure to comply could result in the dismissal of her application.

The deadline for the parties' disclosure of documents and witness statements was also extended.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled summary hearing to obtain counsel and finish a course, and indicated an intention to record the hearing.

The respondents consented to the adjournment but opposed the recording and requested the hearing proceed in writing.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, finding no exceptional circumstances as required by its Practice Direction.

The Tribunal permitted the applicant to record the hearing subject to undertakings not to publish it.

The respondents' request for a written hearing was denied because section 43(2) of the Human Rights Code entitles parties to an oral hearing before final disposition.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application on the basis of delay, settlement privilege, and having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant argued that the Tribunal misrepresented an OLRB decision and improperly applied settlement privilege.

The Tribunal found no denial of natural justice and concluded that the applicant was attempting to re-argue issues already decided.

The request for reconsideration was denied as the applicant failed to meet the criteria under Rule 26.5.

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

The applicant failed to file a list of arguably relevant documents and pre-hearing materials as directed by the Notice of Hearing.

Despite a Case Assessment Direction warning that failure to comply could result in dismissal, the applicant did not file the required materials.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The respondent requested the dismissal of the applicant's human rights application on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant, who alleged discrimination in employment based on disability, sought to amend her application to add family status as a ground of discrimination.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, finding it did not significantly expand the scope of the issues and was made before document disclosure.

The Tribunal dismissed the respondent's request to dismiss the application, concluding that a full hearing was necessary to assess the evidence regarding whether the applicant's disability or family status were factors in her termination.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order during Proceeding (RFOP) seeking the production of documents and an extension of time to file hearing materials in an age discrimination application.

The Tribunal found that the respondents had complied with the initial document request and noted that the applicant had not filed the required Form 10 for a subsequent request.

The Tribunal extended the deadline for both parties to file their hearing materials and directed them to cease copying the Tribunal on unnecessary correspondence.

The respondent police officers brought a request for an order during proceedings to strike portions of a human rights application on the basis of delay.

The applicant, who was a minor at the time of the alleged incidents of racial profiling in 2007 and 2008, argued that the limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code should not begin to run until he turned 18, relying on common law principles and the Limitations Act, 2002.

The Tribunal held that the Limitations Act, 2002 does not apply to the Code, and that a minor's status is instead considered when assessing whether the delay was incurred in good faith under section 34(2).

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish a good faith explanation for the delay, noting he was represented by counsel during the relevant period who had raised the issue of racial profiling in criminal proceedings.

The untimely allegations were dismissed.

The applicant, a minor represented by her next friend, filed an application alleging sexual harassment and reprisal in employment after a co-worker pushed her and yelled at her.

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

The Tribunal found that the alleged conduct could not reasonably be interpreted as sexual harassment and there was no evidence linking the incident to the applicant's sex.

The Tribunal also found no reasonable prospect of establishing reprisal, as the applicant had not claimed a right under the Code prior to her termination.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a condominium owner, alleged discrimination on the basis of creed and reprisal by the respondent condominium corporation.

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

The applicant alleged that the respondent reprised against her for a previous human rights application by refusing to let her speak at board meetings and deleting her posts from the condominium website.

The Tribunal found no evidence linking the respondent's actions to a Code ground or an intention to reprise, noting the respondent provided legitimate, non-Code reasons for its actions.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application against the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, alleging discrimination and harassment by a Vice-chair during the adjudication of a separate ongoing application.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the Vice-chair's actions were protected by the doctrine of judicial immunity, which shields adjudicators from legal proceedings based on their adjudicative actions.

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

During the hearing, it was revealed that the applicant had recently been criminally charged with fraud relating to his employment with the corporate respondent.

The Tribunal adjourned the hearing and subsequently ordered the deferral of the proceedings until the conclusion of the criminal matter to avoid inconsistent findings of fact and to protect the applicant's right to remain silent.

The Tribunal also granted the respondents' request to rely on additional documentation at the rescheduled hearing, as the applicant did not allege any prejudice from the late disclosure.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in services on the basis of disability against TD Waterhouse.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that the respondent may be a federally regulated business.

The applicant provided a letter from the Canadian Human Rights Commission suggesting TD Waterhouse is provincially regulated for its day-to-day security operations.

The Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the Application fell outside its jurisdiction and ordered the Application to be processed.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination based on disability.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to comply with pre-hearing disclosure obligations, including filing a witness list, witness statements, and documents.

The applicant failed to comply with the initial deadline and a subsequent Case Assessment Direction.

As the applicant did not file the required materials or communicate with the Tribunal, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex and disability by the respondent police services during her arrest and detention.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the sex discrimination allegations, finding that being arrested by a male officer and the police's alleged failure to investigate her prior complaints did not constitute sex discrimination.

However, the Tribunal allowed the disability discrimination allegations to proceed, as the issues regarding the accommodation of the applicant's osteoarthritis during handcuffing and her exposure to ammonia fumes in the holding cell aggravating her asthma required a full evidentiary hearing.

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

Correspondence sent to the applicant's municipal address was returned as moved or unknown.

The Tribunal subsequently sent an email requesting an up-to-date mailing address and warning that the application might be dismissed as abandoned if no response was received.

The applicant failed to respond by the deadline.

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

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming the respondent failed to accommodate his workplace injury and laid him off because of his disability.

The respondent sought to dismiss the application, arguing it was barred by a prior grievance settlement, or alternatively to defer it pending an ongoing WSIB appeal.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application, finding the grievance settlement did not address Code-related issues.

However, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the WSIB Appeals Resolution Officer's decision to avoid concurrent proceedings arising from the same factual history.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) on the basis that the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction, directing the applicant to respond by a specified date.

The applicant failed to respond to the NOID.

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

The applicant requested reconsideration of an interim decision that denied her request to amend her application and her request for production of a CPIC file.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, noting that its rules generally only permit reconsideration of final decisions, and the applicant failed to demonstrate any compelling or extraordinary circumstances to justify reconsidering the interim rulings.