HRTO 2013

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking the production of her performance evaluations from all departments.

The respondent agreed to provide the documents but the applicant claimed she did not receive all of them.

The Tribunal found the requested performance evaluations arguably relevant to the applicant's claim of harassment and ordered the respondent to produce any remaining evaluations.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the outcome of three related union grievances.

Finding that the grievances addressed similar facts and issues and were still ongoing, the Tribunal deferred the application in accordance with its usual practice.

Le requérant a déposé une requête alléguant la discrimination en matière d'emploi.

Le Tribunal a émis un avis d'intention de rejeter la requête car le dernier incident allégué semblait avoir eu lieu plus d'un an avant le dépôt, soulevant une question de compétence.

Le requérant n'a pas présenté d'observations sur la question du retard dans le délai prescrit.

Par conséquent, le Tribunal a jugé que le requérant avait abandonné sa requête et l'a rejetée.

The respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking particulars regarding the applicant's claims of discrimination based on disability and family status, as well as an extension of time to file its Response.

The applicant opposed the request, arguing the Application contained sufficient particulars.

The Tribunal granted the respondent's request, finding the particulars sought related to key information reasonably required to file a full Response, and extended the deadline for the Response.

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

He sought an interim remedy of reinstatement, citing financial hardship.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding the applicant failed to establish that an interim remedy was necessary to facilitate a complete and effective remedy at the end of the hearing.

The Tribunal also directed submissions on a request to intervene and whether the application should be deferred pending a related grievance arbitration.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of race and colour against McDonald's Restaurants of Canada Ltd. The respondent requested that the franchisee, Bartlett Family Restaurants Inc., be substituted as the proper respondent.

Given the respondent's consent and the applicant's failure to file submissions on the issue, the Tribunal removed the franchisor and substituted the franchisee as the respondent.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment.

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

The Tribunal directed the applicant to advise whether he intended to proceed with the application, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant did not respond.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant, a tenant with a mobility disability, requested an onsite parking space from his landlord to accommodate his deteriorating condition.

The landlord refused the request, citing a policy of only offering available onsite spaces to new tenants for commercial advantage and to avoid friction among existing tenants.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario found that the landlord breached both the procedural and substantive components of the duty to accommodate.

The Tribunal ordered the landlord to provide the applicant with an onsite parking space, pay $5,000 in compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and complete human rights training.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment.

The Tribunal addressed several preliminary requests for orders during proceedings (RFOPs).

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to amend the application to add a newly discovered act of reprisal, noting the lack of prejudice to the respondents.

The Tribunal denied the respondents' request to remove the individual respondents, finding it premature before pre-hearing disclosure, as the individual respondents' involvement in the alleged harassment and reprisal was central to the claims.

The Tribunal deferred the respondents' requests to strike a paragraph of the application and to dismiss the application under section 45.1 of the Code to the adjudicator assigned to hear the merits.

The applicant, a grade four student with learning disabilities, alleged discrimination when he was denied access to the Tutors in the Classroom program.

The Ministry of Education requested to be removed as a respondent, arguing that the delivery of special education services is the responsibility of school boards, not the Ministry.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application against the Ministry, finding no reasonable prospect of success as the applicant failed to establish a link between the Ministry's actions and the alleged discrimination.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability against a school board, a teacher, and a teachers' union.

The applicant requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the completion of a discipline proceeding before the Ontario College of Teachers.

The respondents consented to the deferral.

The Tribunal ordered the application deferred pending the conclusion of the College proceedings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of disability, and also filed two grievances based on the same facts.

The Tribunal invited submissions on whether the application should be deferred pending the resolution of the grievances.

Neither party filed submissions.

The Tribunal deferred the application on its own initiative, noting the substantial overlap of facts and issues and the ability of the grievance process to address human rights issues.

The union filed a Request to Intervene in a human rights application alleging workplace discrimination.

Neither the applicant nor the respondent filed a response to the request.

The Tribunal granted the union intervenor status, noting that a union almost always has an interest in a human rights application involving a member, as potential remedies could impact the union's interests.

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

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

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondents of the consequences of failing to participate under Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, and granted them 14 days to file a Response along with an explanation for the delay.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal in the workplace.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine if the application was filed within the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that no alleged incidents of discrimination or reprisal occurred within one year of the application's filing date.

Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant failed to provide a good faith explanation for the delay.

Consequently, the application was dismissed as out of time.

The applicant filed a request to proceed under Rule 14.3 to reactivate her human rights application, which had previously been deferred pending the conclusion of an appeal before the Social Benefits Tribunal.

The applicant withdrew her appeal, and the respondents either did not object or failed to respond to the request.

The Tribunal found the request to proceed appropriate, granted it, and directed the application be returned to the Registrar for processing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing based on race, colour, family status, and receipt of public assistance.

The respondent requested early dismissal under s. 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the applicant had commenced a civil proceeding in Small Claims Court based on the same factual context.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the civil claim did not seek human rights remedies or rely on Code-related claims, and therefore s. 34(11) did not apply to bar the application at this stage.

The applicant requested to defer her human rights application regarding disability accommodation pending the outcome of a reconsideration request and potential judicial review of a related, previously dismissed application concerning workplace harassment.

The Tribunal refused the request to defer, finding that the issues in the two applications were distinct and emphasizing the need to resolve the matter expeditiously given the age of the allegations and the ongoing conflict between the parties.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on age, ethnicity, and place of origin.

The Tribunal previously dismissed the ethnicity and place of origin claims for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to confirm her intention to proceed with the age discrimination claim and provide reasons.

The applicant failed to respond to the direction.

The Tribunal found the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of an Interim Decision that dismissed parts of her human rights application against her employer and co-workers due to delay and having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was attempting to re-litigate issues already decided and failed to provide new evidence or demonstrate that the Interim Decision conflicted with established jurisprudence.

The request for reconsideration was denied.