HRTO 2013

The applicant, a not-for-profit organization serving newcomers from Mainland China, alleged that the Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration and its officials discriminated against it on the basis of ethnic origin and place of origin by reducing and ultimately denying its Newcomer Settlement Program (NSP) funding.

The applicant claimed that a Ministry official from Hong Kong was biased against the applicant because it was operated by individuals from Mainland China.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario dismissed the application, finding that the Ministry conducted a thorough and fair evaluation process and that the applicant failed to satisfy the mandated eligibility criteria for NSP funding.

The Tribunal concluded there was no evidence connecting the funding decisions to the prohibited grounds.

The applicant failed to comply with the Tribunal's Rules regarding the delivery and filing of witness lists, witness statements, and documents.

A Case Assessment Direction was issued directing the applicant to comply within seven days, failing which the Application may be dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant did not respond or file the required materials.

The Application was dismissed as abandoned.

The respondent requested that part of the human rights application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that a prior arbitration award had already dealt with the applicant's accommodation allegations for the fall 2010 semester.

The Tribunal found that the arbitration was a proceeding that appropriately dealt with the substance of those allegations, as the arbitrator had concluded the applicant did not have a disability requiring accommodation during that period.

The Tribunal ordered that the applicant could not rely on allegations from that period to establish a Code violation, leaving the admissibility of such evidence for context to the merits adjudicator.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that found the respondent had contravened a settlement agreement.

The applicant argued the remedial order was insufficient based on information from mediation and subsequent incidents.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, noting that reconsideration is not an appeal or an opportunity to repair deficiencies in a case, and that information from mediation or new allegations not properly before the Tribunal could not be considered.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a summary hearing in order to retain legal counsel.

The respondents opposed the request, noting the applicant had already been granted a previous adjournment for the same reason.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant had ample opportunity to retain counsel and that failure to do so in a timely manner does not constitute an extraordinary circumstance warranting an adjournment under the Tribunal's Practice Direction.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application as abandoned.

The applicant explained that she did not receive the Tribunal's correspondence because her housing unit's buzzer was malfunctioning, an issue she alleged was part of the discrimination she faced.

The Tribunal granted the reconsideration request, finding that the applicant did not receive notice through no fault of her own and did not intend to abandon the application.

The Tribunal also ordered a summary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success or because it was appropriately dealt with in eviction proceedings before the Superior Court.

The applicant failed to comply with Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, which require the delivery and filing of a witness list, witness statements, and documents at least 45 days prior to the hearing.

Despite a Case Assessment Direction warning that the application could be dismissed as abandoned if he did not comply within seven days, the applicant failed to respond or file the required materials.

Consequently, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, which was deferred pending the completion of a grievance proceeding.

The Tribunal later requested an update on the grievance, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The respondent advised that the grievance had settled, but the applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's inquiry.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment after complaining about a poster in the workplace washroom.

The applicant's bargaining agent, CAW-Canada, filed a Request to Intervene.

Noting that a union generally has an interest in a human rights application brought by a bargaining unit employee, and with no opposition from the other parties, the Tribunal granted the intervention request.

The Tribunal also directed the applicant to confirm his willingness to participate in mediation.

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to remove the named personal respondent, Russell Mills, as a party to the human rights application.

The applicant consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request and amended the style of cause accordingly.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intention to Dismiss because the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

After granting multiple extensions of time for the applicant to file submissions, the applicant requested the matter be put on hold to file a statement of claim.

The Tribunal refused an indefinite hold and set a final deadline.

When the applicant failed to communicate further, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code alleging age discrimination in employment.

The Tribunal initially issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, noting that the narrative in the application did not link the alleged harsh treatment by her supervisor to her age.

Upon reviewing the applicant's written submissions and Form 1-A, the Tribunal found that the applicant had specifically alleged her supervisor took advantage of her youth and inexperience.

The Tribunal concluded a sufficient link to a Code ground was established and allowed the application to proceed.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment based on sex.

The parties agreed to mediation, but the applicant failed to attend the scheduled mediation session.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to advise whether she intended to proceed with the application, warning that failure to respond could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant did not respond to the Tribunal's correspondence.

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

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

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

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

Neither party responded.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging the respondent failed to accommodate his knee injury.

The respondent requested the production of the applicant's Employee Health and Rehabilitation file and clinical notes from his treating medical practitioners.

The Tribunal found the requested documents met the threshold test of arguable relevance, as they speak directly to the nature of the disability and what the respondent knew to accommodate it.

The Tribunal ordered the production of both groups of documents.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing due to serious mood and anxiety disorders that impaired her ability to retain counsel.

The respondent opposed the request.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that a letter from the applicant's psychiatrist explaining the delay and confirming she had retained a lawyer constituted exceptional circumstances.

The Tribunal imposed conditions to minimize prejudice to the respondent and ensure the expeditious resolution of the application.

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

The original application was dismissed because the applicant failed to respond to a Notice of Intent to Dismiss regarding the apparent delay in filing.

In his reconsideration request, the applicant did not provide any reasons for his failure to respond or for the delay, but instead focused on the merits of his allegations.

The Tribunal found no basis under Rule 26.5 to exercise its discretion to reconsider the decision and dismissed the request.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, specifically a failure to accommodate.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred pending a decision by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) Appeals Resolution Officer regarding the suitability of a Player Services Representative position offered to the applicant.

The Tribunal found that the WSIB proceedings were intricately involved in the return to work and accommodation process and deferred the application pending the WSIB appeal decision.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application for abandonment after he failed to attend a summary hearing teleconference.

The applicant submitted that he was incarcerated at the time of the teleconference and did not receive notice.

The respondent opposed the request.

The Tribunal exercised its discretion to allow the reconsideration, finding that the applicant did not receive notice through no fault of his own, and ordered a new summary hearing teleconference to be scheduled.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the human rights application pending the result of a proceeding at the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB).

The applicant opposed the deferral, arguing the issues were significantly different.

The Tribunal found that while the issues were not identical, there was significant overlap regarding the nature of the applicant's disabilities and whether the employer met its duty to accommodate.

The Tribunal deferred the application until the WSIB proceeding is complete.