HRTO 2013

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to amend her human rights application to add requests for monetary damages, policy development, and training.

The respondent did not file a response or oppose the request.

The Tribunal found the proposed amendments reasonable and granted the request, noting no prejudice to the respondent as the hearing was scheduled for a later date.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment based on sex, sexual orientation, and sexual solicitation and advances.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to file materials under Rules 16 and 17, warning that failure to do so could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant failed to respond to the direction.

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

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking an adjournment of the scheduled hearing and an extension of time to amend the Application to include a claim for loss of disability benefits.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, noting it was made outside the 14-day period and no exceptional circumstances were cited, especially since the applicant had known of his change in status since April 2013.

The request to amend the Application and call additional witnesses was deferred to be addressed at the beginning of the hearing.

The applicant alleged that the respondent engaged in reprisal contrary to section 8 of the Human Rights Code by failing to place her in a static posting and by ending her employment when her security guard license expired.

The Tribunal found no evidence that a suitable static posting was available at the applicant's rate of pay.

Regarding the end of her employment, the Tribunal found that the respondent honestly believed it could not legally employ an unlicensed guard under the Private Security and Investigative Services Act, 2005.

The respondent consistently applied this policy to all employees whose licenses expired.

The Tribunal concluded there was no evidence of reprisal and dismissed the application.

The parties made a joint request for a final order pursuant to section 45.9(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to pay the applicant $7,500 in accordance with the Minutes of Settlement, and required the execution of a full and final release and a mutual non-disparagement agreement.

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

The Tribunal directed the parties to produce documents and witness lists prior to the scheduled hearing.

The applicant failed to comply with the initial deadline and a subsequent Case Assessment Direction warning that the application might be dismissed as abandoned.

The Tribunal found the applicant had abandoned the application and dismissed it.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and reprisal.

The applicant failed to comply with a Case Assessment Direction requiring disclosure of evidence and witness statements.

The applicant subsequently failed to attend the scheduled hearing.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had notice of the hearing and dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on race and reprisal by his former employer.

The Tribunal convened a summary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success or for delay.

The Tribunal found that the allegations relating to events from 2007 to 2009 and a comment in March 2011 were untimely and not part of a series of incidents.

The Tribunal also concluded that the applicant had no reasonable prospect of proving that the remaining alleged mistreatment, including warnings, failure to promote, suspension, and termination, was linked to his race or constituted a reprisal under the Code.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The respondent brought a Request for an Order during Proceeding seeking, among other things, an order that the applicant undergo an Independent Medical Examination (IME) by a psychiatrist selected by the respondent.

Following case management hearings, the parties agreed that an IME would not be ordered at this stage and that the hearing would be bifurcated.

The Tribunal ordered the bifurcation of the hearing and extended the deadline for filing documents and witness statements on consent.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment by a bus driver while riding the respondent's transit system.

The applicant brought a Request for an Order during Proceedings seeking disclosure of the bus driver's full name in order to add him as a personal respondent.

The respondent opposed the request, arguing it accepted vicarious liability.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding the driver's identity was arguably relevant to the allegations and necessary for the applicant's intention to add him as a party.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability and reprisal.

After being granted an adjournment with conditions to provide pre-hearing disclosure by a specific date, the applicant failed to comply.

She requested a further extension citing medical reasons, which the Tribunal denied.

Due to the applicant's failure to comply with the Tribunal's directions regarding disclosure, the respondent sought to have the application dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed an Application alleging reprisal in employment.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the narrative did not appear to relate to specific acts of reprisal under the Human Rights Code.

In written submissions, the applicant clarified that she was terminated after complaining about sexual harassment and discrimination based on sex, family status, and age.

The Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the Application was outside its jurisdiction and permitted the applicant to amend the Application to include the additional grounds.

The applicant failed to comply with the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure and a Case Assessment Direction requiring the exchange and filing of documents, witness lists, and anticipated evidence.

As the deadline passed without compliance, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant, a restaurant owner, alleged that a parking enforcement officer engaged in a campaign to drive him out of business by discriminatorily ticketing his customers' cars and making racist comments.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's evidence regarding the alleged racist comments and discriminatory ticketing was not credible or in harmony with the preponderance of probabilities.

The application was dismissed as the applicant failed to prove discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sexual harassment and a poisoned work environment during her employment at the respondents' law firm.

The respondents requested a deferral of the application because the Law Society of Upper Canada (LSUC) was actively investigating a professional misconduct complaint filed by the applicant regarding the same allegations.

The Tribunal found that proceeding concurrently would risk unnecessary duplication and inconsistent findings, and ordered the application deferred pending the conclusion of the LSUC process.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding sought an order for the production of various documents from the respondents, Securitas and Toyota.

The Tribunal reviewed the requests and found that most of the documents were either no longer in existence, not in the respondents' possession, or not arguably relevant to the remaining allegations.

The Tribunal ordered Securitas to produce one specific notebook that was arguably relevant to the issue of fire extinguisher inspections.

The Tribunal also provided case management directions requiring the parties to file outstanding materials and a revised witness statement.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a summary hearing scheduled by telephone, citing physical injuries affecting her mobility and a lack of legal representation.

The respondent opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, noting that mobility issues would not affect participation in a telephone hearing and that seeking representation is not typically grounds for an adjournment.

The corporate respondent brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings to remove five individual respondents from the human rights application and to compel the applicant to provide further particulars of his allegations.

The Tribunal granted the request to remove the individual respondents, finding no compelling juridical reason to retain them as the corporate respondent accepted liability for their actions and was in the best position to respond to and remedy the alleged failure to accommodate.

The Tribunal also ordered the applicant to provide further particulars regarding his allegations of discrimination.

The respondents requested that the applicant's human rights application be deferred pending the outcome of an ongoing Employment Standards Act (ESA) claim, arguing that both proceedings dealt with allegations of reprisal.

The Tribunal dismissed the request to defer, finding that neither party had filed a complete copy of the ESA claim, leaving the Tribunal without sufficient information to determine if there was a risk of inconsistent findings of fact.

The matter was referred to the Registrar to schedule mediation.

The applicant, a Black African Canadian, alleged discrimination and reprisal under the Human Rights Code after being stopped and questioned by two police officers shortly after a nearby robbery.

The officers stopped the applicant because he matched the general description of the fleeing suspects and was in the vicinity.

During the stop, an officer asked the applicant about his place of birth and commented on his accent while completing a Field Information Report.

The Tribunal found that the stop was based on valid, non-discriminatory reasons and that the questioning did not violate the Code.

The application was dismissed.