HRTO 2013

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

The Tribunal's notices and correspondence sent to the applicant's provided mailing address were returned, indicating the applicant had moved.

Despite multiple emails and a letter warning that the application could be deemed abandoned under Rule 5.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure if updated contact information was not provided, the applicant failed to respond.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The corporate respondent brought a request for an order during proceeding to remove all named personal respondents from the human rights application.

The corporate respondent accepted vicarious liability for the actions of the personal respondents, who were its employees or agents.

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal found that the corporate respondent was fully capable of satisfying any remedial order and no prejudice would result from the removal.

The request was granted and the personal respondents were removed.

The applicant requested to reactivate his human rights application after it was held in abeyance pending the outcome of his first application.

The Tribunal granted the reactivation as the final decision in the first application had been issued.

The applicant also requested a Tribunal-ordered inquiry to investigate his termination and disprove the respondent's allegations of theft.

The Tribunal denied this request, stating that an inquiry is not a mechanism for a party to bolster its position regarding the other party's evidence.

The applicant, acting through her litigation guardian, alleged that the respondent hotel discriminated against her on the basis of disability (autism) when the hotel owner called the police and Children's Aid Society and threatened eviction.

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

Assuming the applicant's allegations were true, the Tribunal found that the respondent's actions were prompted by the parents leaving the applicant alone in the hotel without notifying staff, rather than an unwillingness to accommodate her disability.

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

The applicant, a black man originally from Trinidad and Tobago, filed an application alleging discrimination and reprisals in employment by the respondent.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's allegations were largely based on speculation, lacked probative value, and failed to show a link between the respondent's conduct and the alleged Code grounds.

The application was dismissed on a preliminary basis.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal, claiming he was suspended and dismissed for failing to participate in a cover-up of alleged Code violations.

A concurrent grievance regarding his suspension and termination was scheduled for arbitration.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process, noting the substantial overlap in facts and issues and the arbitrator's jurisdiction to apply human rights law.

The applicant sought reconsideration of the Registrar's administrative closure of his human rights application.

The application was closed because it did not identify a respondent and the applicant failed to respond to a Notice of Incomplete Application, allegedly due to a postal code error.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding it unnecessary because the administrative closure was not a final decision.

The applicant remains free to file a new application and argue that his delay was incurred in good faith.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application for delay.

The applicant argued that the decision failed to accurately reflect the facts and her disability, and that it absolved employers of their duty to accommodate.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was attempting to re-argue her case and did not establish any new facts, conflict with established jurisprudence, or matters of public importance.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant requested anonymity in the Tribunal's interim decisions, citing references to her mental health condition.

The respondent objected, arguing no exceptional circumstances were shown.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that human rights proceedings are presumptively open and that the disclosure of personal information regarding a disability is common and does not, on its own, justify the extraordinary measure of anonymization.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application following a summary hearing.

The original application alleged that the union and personal respondents failed to adequately represent him in discipline proceedings due to discriminatory reasons.

The Tribunal denied the request for reconsideration, finding that the applicant failed to establish any of the criteria under Rule 26.5, as he was attempting to re-argue his case and did not demonstrate how the decision conflicted with established case law or involved a matter of public importance.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application.

The original application alleged discrimination in employment and claimed that a grievance settlement leading to his resignation was signed under duress.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that the applicant was merely attempting to re-argue his case and failed to establish any of the criteria required under Rule 26.5 for reconsideration.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability against the respondent police services board.

The applicant's bargaining agent filed an unopposed Request to Intervene.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting that unions typically have an interest in the outcome of applications involving a continuing employment relationship and may provide helpful input.

The respondent requested an order directing the applicant to produce all arguably relevant documents, including medical documents relating to her absence from work.

The applicant failed to respond to the request or comply with the Tribunal's earlier direction to exchange documents.

The Tribunal granted the respondent's request, ordering the applicant to produce the documents within seven days, failing which her application may be dismissed as abandoned.

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

The Tribunal scheduled a summary hearing by teleconference to determine whether the application should be dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing and did not communicate with the Tribunal to explain his absence.

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

The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision that dismissed his human rights application as abandoned after he failed to attend a scheduled telephone conference call hearing.

The request was filed more than 30 days after the decision and provided no explanation for his failure to participate in the hearing.

The Tribunal denied the request for reconsideration.

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

The Tribunal directed the parties to exchange documents and witness lists in advance of the scheduled hearing.

The applicant failed to provide the required materials by the deadline and failed to comply with a subsequent Case Assessment Direction.

As a result, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code but indicated that a civil proceeding had been commenced regarding the same facts and issues.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss and directed the applicant to provide submissions.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice and a subsequent Case Assessment Direction.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision dismissing her human rights application against an arbitrator and a university.

The original decision found the arbitrator was protected by adjudicative immunity and the claim against the university had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding the applicant merely sought to re-argue her case and failed to establish any new facts, conflicts with established jurisprudence, or other factors justifying reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability against the City of Ottawa, relating to his placement on a Priority Placement Program after being employed as a bus driver with OC Transpo.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, arguing OC Transpo is a federally-regulated enterprise.

The applicant's union requested intervenor status.

The Tribunal granted the union intervenor status and directed that a teleconference hearing be scheduled to hear oral submissions on the preliminary issues of jurisdiction and document production.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination regarding his eligibility for post-65 retirement benefits under a collective agreement.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application had been dealt with in prior grievance arbitrations, or alternatively, that it should be dismissed for res judicata, issue estoppel, or abuse of process.

The Tribunal denied the requests, finding that the applicant was not a party to the prior arbitrations and that the prior proceedings did not appropriately deal with the human rights issues.

However, the Tribunal scheduled a summary hearing to address whether the application had no reasonable prospect of success due to the s. 25(2.1) exemption for age-based benefit plans and whether the application was premature.