HRTO 2013

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

The respondent was unable to deliver documents to the applicant's address.

The Tribunal attempted to contact the applicant to request updated contact information or confirmation of his address, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal.

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's correspondence.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of disability.

She also filed a union grievance alleging a failure to accommodate her disability based on the same facts.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the resolution of the grievance proceedings.

The Tribunal noted the clear overlap between the grievance and the application, and that the grievance was proceeding to arbitration.

As the applicant did not provide submissions opposing the deferral, the Tribunal deferred the application until the grievance proceedings are resolved.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing on the basis that she was still seeking legal counsel, having retained counsel only two weeks prior to the hearing.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the late retention of counsel did not constitute an exceptional circumstance warranting an adjournment under the Tribunal's Practice Direction.

The applicant was ordered to file the required hearing materials within seven days.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) on the basis that 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.

In an application challenging the constitutionality of section 10(5) of the Coroners Act for not mandating inquests into the deaths of migrant farm workers, the adjudicator issued interim procedural rulings.

The adjudicator ruled that expert witnesses would affirm their reports without a prior voir dire, with qualifications and weight to be argued in final submissions.

The adjudicator also admitted document briefs into evidence without requiring witnesses to formally identify each document.

Finally, the adjudicator denied the applicant's request to call reply evidence regarding the causes of heart attacks among migrant workers, finding that such evidence should have been led in the case in chief.

The applicant requested to amend his human rights application to include additional remedies based on new information received since filing.

The Ministry respondents did not oppose the request, while the Independent Learning Centre opposed it.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend the application in the interest of a fair and expedient resolution, noting that denying it could result in a second proceeding against the same respondents.

The respondents were given 21 days to deliver a response to the amended application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in services based on disability, claiming the respondent hospital misdiagnosed a foot problem and wrongfully detained him under a Form 1 psychiatric assessment.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

Upon reviewing the applicant's written submissions, the Tribunal found the application was not plain and obviously outside its jurisdiction, as the narrative established a link between the respondent's actions and a perceived mental health disability.

However, the Tribunal scheduled a summary hearing to determine if the application has a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant requested an order during proceedings to amend her human rights application to increase the amount of monetary damages sought for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and to add a claim for loss of income and benefits.

The individual respondent opposed the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting that the amendment related only to the relief sought and did not involve additional allegations, and that there was no prejudice to the respondents as a hearing had not yet been scheduled.

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

The Tribunal directed the parties to exchange and file hearing materials.

The respondents complied, but the applicant did not.

After the applicant failed to respond to a Case Assessment Direction warning that the application might be dismissed as abandoned, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned and cancelled the scheduled hearing dates.

The applicant sought to amend her human rights application to characterize the cancellation of her shifts in April 2011 as racial or ethnic discrimination for which the respondent hospital is vicariously liable, rather than as a reprisal.

The applicant also requested to add new allegations of discriminatory comments made by co-workers in early 2012.

The Tribunal granted both amendments, finding that the respondent would not suffer prejudice and that combining the allegations was the most efficient manner to proceed.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because he was hospitalized and unable to attend.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment request due to the applicant's medical condition and directed that the hearing be rescheduled as an in-person hearing within 12 weeks.

The Tribunal also directed the applicant to file his required documents and witness statements no later than 45 days prior to the rescheduled hearing, warning that failure to do so could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to participate in a scheduled telephone conference call hearing and subsequently requested a lengthy adjournment, citing mental health issues and caregiving responsibilities.

The Tribunal found the applicant's explanation and supporting medical documentation inadequate.

The Tribunal scheduled a further half-day telephone conference call hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed as an abuse of process.

The applicant, a Muslim salesperson, alleged that his employer discriminated against him on the basis of creed by preventing him from attending Friday prayers, forcing him to work on Eid, and ultimately terminating his employment.

The Tribunal found that the respondent accommodated the religious practices of its Muslim employees and that the applicant's termination was based on poor sales performance, not his creed.

As the timely allegations regarding termination and post-termination commissions were dismissed on their merits, the remaining allegations were found to be out of time under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a painter, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability after being terminated by the respondent.

The applicant suffered from a recurring stomach condition that caused him to miss work.

While the previous owner accommodated his absences, the new owner terminated his employment, citing unreliability due to sickness and customer complaints.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's illness was a disability under the Code and that the respondent failed to accommodate him to the point of undue hardship.

The Tribunal concluded that the disability was a factor in the termination and awarded the applicant $1,760 in lost earnings.

The applicant sought to withdraw her human rights application due to a family emergency requiring her to travel abroad.

The respondent requested that the withdrawal be granted 'with prejudice' to filing a new application, noting the impending expiry of the one-year limitation period under s. 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal granted the withdrawal without terms, holding that any timeliness objections could be raised if the applicant attempted to re-file the allegations in the future.

The applicant, who suffers from Lupus, alleged discrimination with respect to employment because of disability.

She claimed she was subjected to harassing comments, denied accommodation, and terminated because of her disability.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations of harassing comments and failure to accommodate.

However, the Tribunal found that the applicant's disability and related absenteeism were factors in the respondent's decision to terminate her during a restructuring process.

The Tribunal awarded $15,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, along with compensation for lost wages.

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

The respondent failed to file a response by the directed deadline.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent that failure to file a response within 10 days could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming the respondent to have accepted the allegations.

The applicant alleged that the respondent discriminated against her on the basis of disability (asthma) when it failed to hire her for a home-based customer service position.

The respondent requested a summary hearing, arguing that the applicant was one of many unsuccessful candidates in a highly competitive process and lacked relevant sales experience.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to point to any evidence establishing a link between the respondent's decision not to hire her and her disability.

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

The applicant tenant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment by her landlord on the basis of disability, marital status, family status, and receipt of public assistance.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations relating to a slip and fall accident, an eviction for rent arrears, and a Law Society complaint against the applicant's counsel, finding no reasonable prospect of success as there was no evidence linking these events to Code grounds.

However, the Tribunal allowed the allegation that the applicant was discriminatorily denied access to the building's laundry room on the basis of disability to proceed to a full hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing and requested an interim remedy to resolve the issues prior to an upcoming eviction proceeding.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant failed to establish that the balance of harm favoured granting the interim remedy or that the remedy was necessary to ensure a complete and effective remedy at the end of the hearing.

The Tribunal also declined to expedite the application, as the circumstances were not truly urgent.