HRTO 2013

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

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation session and did not communicate with the Tribunal to explain the absence.

The Tribunal subsequently directed the applicant to advise of his intentions regarding the application, warning that failure to respond could result in abandonment.

The applicant did not respond.

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

The respondents in a human rights application requested an order to remove the individual respondent, a managerial employee, as a party to the proceeding.

The corporate respondent accepted vicarious liability for the individual respondent's actions and demonstrated the ability to respond to and remedy any potential Code violations.

Finding no compelling reason to continue the proceeding against the individual respondent, the Tribunal granted the request and removed him as a party.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of disability after the respondents refused to transfer his seniority to a new position following a workplace injury.

The respondents sought an extension of time to file their Responses and requested early disclosure of the applicant's occupational health and WSIB files to prepare their defence.

The Tribunal granted limited disclosure of the occupational health files from 2010 onwards, finding them arguably relevant to the seniority transfer issue, but denied disclosure of the WSIB files pending further submissions on statutory privilege.

The respondents were granted an extension of time to file their Responses.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment more than one year after his termination.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for delay.

The applicant argued the delay was due to assurances from the respondents' lawyers, threats, and blackmail.

The Tribunal found the applicant provided no evidence to substantiate these claims and failed to demonstrate that the delay was incurred in good faith under section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed.

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 a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to amend his human rights Application and Reply to correct contact information, amend remedies sought, and clarify factual accounts.

The respondent consented to the proposed amendments.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting that the amendments would provide clarity to the pleadings and cause no prejudice to the respondent, in accordance with Rule 1.7(c) of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Hearing and a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to provide documents, a witness list, and witness statements by specified deadlines.

The applicant failed to comply with these directions and did not communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned and cancelled the scheduled hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of creed after his gym membership was cancelled.

The applicant, who identifies as Christian, made anti-Islamic comments to other gym members, causing complaints.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and found that the respondent gym had a positive obligation to ensure its clients were not subject to a poisoned environment.

The Tribunal concluded that the application had no reasonable prospect of success because the respondent's actions were based on the applicant's imposition of his views on others, not his own creed.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought reconsideration of an interim decision that dismissed parts of his human rights application for delay and abuse of process.

The applicant filed the request two days late, but the Tribunal granted an extension because the delay was incurred in good faith due to the applicant's disability.

On the merits of the reconsideration request, the Tribunal found that the applicant was merely attempting to re-argue issues already decided in the interim decision.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant failed to establish any of the grounds for reconsideration under the Tribunal's rules and denied the request.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing due to unforeseen family matters but failed to provide further details when directed by the Tribunal.

The respondents opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify it at a late stage.

Additionally, due to the applicant's failure to comply with a Case Assessment Direction regarding pre-hearing obligations, the Tribunal ordered that she would not be permitted to call witnesses other than herself or introduce documents at the hearing.

The applicant was also directed to confirm her attendance by a specified date, failing which the application would be dismissed as abandoned.

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

The Tribunal had previously deferred the proceeding pending the conclusion of an ongoing proceeding at the WSIB.

The Tribunal subsequently wrote to the applicant twice, requesting an update on the status of the other proceeding and warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal.

The applicant failed to respond to the correspondence.

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

In this interim decision, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario addressed several procedural issues in an ongoing human rights application alleging discrimination based on family status, marital status, and reprisal.

The Tribunal permitted the applicant to file an amended Application to include new allegations related to his suspension and termination, subject to specific parameters to prevent re-litigating previously decided issues.

The Tribunal dismissed the respondent's request to declare the applicant a vexatious litigant, finding his conduct did not amount to an abuse of process.

The Tribunal also addressed issues regarding the respondent's disclosure of the Application in another proceeding and the applicant's communication with the Tribunal, providing directions on how to proceed.

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

The facts of the application were part of an ongoing union grievance proceeding.

The Tribunal issued a notice of intent to defer the application pending the resolution of the grievance.

The respondent agreed with the deferral, and the applicant did not provide submissions.

Noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority to enforce human rights statutes, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process, with leave for the applicant to reactivate it if the human rights issues are not adequately addressed.

The applicant filed an application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code alleging discrimination in employment based on disability.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the parties to exchange documents and witness statements, warning that failure to comply could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond to the direction.

Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned, cancelled the scheduled hearing, and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and gender identity following her termination from employment and the denial of ongoing WSIB benefits.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to address whether the application should be dismissed for delay and whether it had a reasonable prospect of success against the WSIB.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide a good faith explanation for filing her application almost two years after her termination.

Furthermore, the Tribunal determined it lacked jurisdiction to review the WSIB's decision to deny benefits.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

The respondent's counsel subsequently advised the Tribunal that she was ceasing to act because the respondent had entered CCAA proceedings, sold its assets, and no longer carried on business.

The Tribunal directed the respondent's former counsel to provide updated contact information for the respondent in accordance with the Tribunal's rules.

The Tribunal also directed the applicant to advise whether he intended to proceed with his application as an unsecured creditor, failing which the application could be dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant requested that the Tribunal correct the name of the respondent in a previous decision from its registered business name, 'Hotlomi Spa', to include its corporation name, '2252419 Ontario Inc.', to allow for enforcement of the Tribunal's order through the courts.

The Tribunal granted the request pursuant to s. 21.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, finding that the omission of the corporation name was a technical deficiency similar to a typographical error, and that correcting it reflected the Tribunal's manifest intention.

The parties entered into Minutes of Settlement and jointly requested a consent order under section 45.9(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued the consent order, requiring the respondent to disclose the Internet Protocol address and email address of the poster of a specific advertisement to the applicant.

The application was subsequently closed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, creed, and family status against her employer, her union, and several individuals.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether the allegations against the union and its representatives had a reasonable prospect of success.

Finding no evidence that the union's actions were based on discriminatory factors, the Tribunal dismissed the application against the union respondents.

The Tribunal also removed the individual employer respondents from the proceeding, as the corporate respondent accepted liability for their actions.

Finally, the Tribunal dismissed the applicant's requests for an interim remedy of severance pay and for premature production of documents.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding requested to amend his application to add marital status as a ground of discrimination and to increase the damages sought.

He also sought production of text messages and certain invoices from the respondent.

The Tribunal granted the requests to amend the application, finding no prejudice or delay.

The Tribunal denied the request for production of text messages as the respondent no longer possessed them, and denied the request for invoices outside the period for which the respondent claimed undue hardship.