HRTO 2013

The applicant in a human rights complaint regarding the administration of the LSAT filed Requests for Order During Proceedings seeking to allow an expert witness to testify via teleconference, to adjourn the hearing, and to compel the production of documents and names of other test-takers.

The Tribunal allowed the expert to testify by teleconference and ordered the production of payment records, finding them arguably relevant.

However, the Tribunal denied the adjournment request as no exceptional circumstances were shown, and refused to order the disclosure of other test-takers' names due to privacy concerns.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code due to a concurrent civil action.

The applicant argued that the civil action was proceeding slowly and that the Tribunal might provide better remedies.

The Tribunal found that these reasons did not outweigh the public interest in the finality of Tribunal decisions and did not meet the threshold criteria for reconsideration.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The respondents failed to file a Response to a human rights application within the extended time limit, resulting in an Interim Decision deeming them to have accepted all allegations.

The respondents subsequently participated in a conference call and mediation, and filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to vary the Interim Decision and permit them to file a joint Response.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding it would be unfair to deny the individual and organizational respondents the opportunity to defend against the application, particularly as the applicant raised no prejudice.

The respondent in a human rights application alleging pregnancy discrimination brought a request for an order during proceedings seeking production of the applicant's financial documents, job offer records, and entire medical file.

The Tribunal applied the 'arguable relevance' standard and ordered production of the financial and job offer documents as they were relevant to wage loss and mitigation.

The Tribunal found the request for the entire medical file overly broad but ordered production of limited medical records relating to the pregnancy and reported stress, as the applicant claimed compensation for injury to dignity.

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

The Tribunal was informed that the parties had settled the matter but had not filed a Form 25 confirming the settlement.

The Tribunal directed the parties to file the form or confirm the intention to proceed to a hearing, warning that failure to do so might result in the application being deemed abandoned.

Neither party responded.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant requested a second adjournment of the hearing, citing late retention of counsel due to financial constraints and mental health issues.

The respondents opposed the adjournment but consented to bifurcating the hearing.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, noting that financial inability to retain counsel and the stated mental health issues did not constitute exceptional circumstances warranting an adjournment, especially given the Tribunal's institutional interest in managing resources.

However, the Tribunal granted the alternative request to bifurcate the hearing and disclosure process between liability and remedy.

The applicant, a non-Christian resident, alleged discrimination on the basis of creed because the respondent municipality opened its public council meetings with a recitation of a 'Town Prayer'.

The Tribunal found that holding council meetings is a service under the Human Rights Code and that the applicant's feelings of exclusion from the religious observance fell within the protected ground of creed.

The Tribunal concluded that the practice of reciting the prayer imposed a religious observance that adversely affected the applicant, establishing a prima facie case of discrimination.

As the respondent provided no evidence of undue hardship to justify the practice, the Tribunal ordered the respondent to cease reciting the prayer at the opening of public council meetings.

Nine applicants in consolidated housing discrimination applications filed Requests for Orders During Proceedings (RFOPs) to amend their applications to increase the amount of monetary compensation claimed.

The respondents consented to one applicant's request but opposed the others.

The Tribunal granted all the requests, noting that amendments to applications, including remedial claims, are generally permitted prior to the commencement of a hearing, without prejudice to the respondents' position on the merits or appropriateness of the remedies.

The applicants filed applications alleging sexual harassment by the personal respondent during their employment.

The respondents failed to appear at the hearing.

The Tribunal granted the applicants' unopposed requests to amend their applications to correct drafting errors and add a claim of reprisal.

The Tribunal also granted a request to correct the personal respondent's name.

Finally, the Tribunal granted an adjournment to allow the applicants to personally serve a potential additional respondent who may have been a partner in the organizational respondent's business.

The respondent requested the consolidation of three separate human rights applications filed by different applicants against the same respondent.

The applicants either consented to or did not oppose the consolidation and joint mediation, or failed to file submissions.

The Tribunal found a strong public interest in consolidating the matters and ordered the three applications consolidated and scheduled for a joint mediation session.

The applicant filed an Application for Contravention of Settlement.

The respondent failed to file a Response despite being granted an extension of time.

The Tribunal issued an Interim Decision warning the respondent that failure to file a Response within 14 days could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming the respondent to have accepted the allegations, pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment based on race, colour, place of origin, citizenship, sex, sexual orientation, age, and reprisal.

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

The applicant alleged various incidents of unfair treatment and overheard a remark about his homosexuality, but failed to provide evidence linking the treatment to any Code grounds or showing that he had attempted to enforce his Code rights prior to the alleged reprisal.

The Tribunal found no reasonable prospect of success and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing and inappropriate comments by the respondent's representatives.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed several preliminary requests.

The respondent's request to dismiss the application based on the tenant screening exemption in section 21.3 of the Code was dismissed as premature.

The applicant's requests for a Tribunal Ordered Inquiry to obtain a video tape and to add two former employees as respondents were denied.

The respondent's request to strike the applicant's late-filed Reply was also denied, as there was no prejudice.

The matter was directed to be scheduled for a one-day hearing.

The applicant filed human rights applications alleging discrimination and reprisal by Crown prosecutors during a regulatory prosecution.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to make submissions on whether the applications fell within its jurisdiction, specifically regarding prosecutorial immunity.

The Tribunal found that the prosecutors' conduct in court and their positions on motions fell within the core of prosecutorial immunity.

The applications were dismissed as the Tribunal cannot be used to relitigate issues from court proceedings or review the exercise of prosecutorial discretion.

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

The respondent failed to file a Response by the deadline set in the Notice of Application.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondent to file a Response within 14 days, warning that failure to do so could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming the respondent to have accepted the allegations.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming he was terminated due to a workplace injury.

He subsequently requested that the Tribunal defer his application pending the outcome of his Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) appeal regarding his eligibility for benefits.

The Tribunal declined to defer the application, finding that the subject matter of the WSIB proceeding (causation and benefit eligibility) differed from the human rights proceeding (whether the termination violated the Code), and that proceeding with the application was the most fair, just, and expeditious outcome.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and marital status by the Family Responsibility Office in its enforcement of a support order.

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

Finding that the applicant could not establish a nexus between the respondent's alleged failure to communicate and a protected ground under the Code, the Tribunal dismissed the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

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

A teleconference hearing was scheduled to address the respondents' request to dismiss the application.

Despite receiving proper notice and communicating with the Tribunal shortly before the hearing, the applicant failed to attend the teleconference.

In the absence of the applicant or any explanation for his failure to attend, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal, related to discipline and termination.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because the applicant's union had filed concurrent grievances regarding the same facts.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process, noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority to decide human rights issues and that deferral is the Tribunal's normal approach in such circumstances.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to goods and services on the basis of race, colour, and receipt of social assistance.

She claimed her daughter was treated poorly and removed from the respondent's school due to her race.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant had no substantial evidence beyond mere speculation to link the school's actions to a prohibited ground, noting the respondent's evidence that the child was removed for delinquent fee payments.

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