HRTO 2013

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment by the Toronto Police Service during his arrest.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the resolution of the applicant's concurrent criminal proceedings.

The applicant opposed deferral, arguing he would not receive a fair criminal trial.

The Tribunal found that deferral was the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed, given the overlap in facts and issues and the advanced stage of the criminal proceedings.

The application was deferred.

The respondent requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing on the basis that it had retained new counsel who was unavailable due to a previous commitment.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that adjournments are not automatically granted and require exceptional circumstances.

The Tribunal found that the respondent was not diligent in retaining counsel and ensuring their availability for the hearing, which had been scheduled for several months.

A short extension was granted for the respondent to file its hearing materials.

The applicant, a real estate agent, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on record of offences and association, claiming he was prevented from suing a developer for unpaid commissions.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application was filed more than two years after the last alleged incident of discrimination (a court decision dismissing his civil claim).

The Tribunal found no evidence that the delay was incurred in good faith and dismissed the application as out of time.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex and sexual solicitation or advances, claiming she was sexually harassed by a co-worker and that the employer covered it up while the union protected the co-worker.

The union requested that the application be deferred pending the conclusion of a related grievance dealing with the same issues.

The Tribunal found that the grievance proceeding dealt with substantially the same facts and issues, and that the arbitrator had jurisdiction to hear human rights issues.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal regarding her termination.

The termination was also the subject of a concurrent grievance scheduled for arbitration.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer.

The applicant opposed deferral, while the respondents supported it.

The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the facts, human rights issues, and remedies sought in both proceedings.

To ensure the orderly administration of justice and avoid inconsistent decisions, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the arbitration process.

The respondent employer sought early dismissal of a human rights application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application had been dealt with by an Employment Standards Officer (ESO).

The ESO had previously denied the applicant's claim for termination pay, finding him guilty of wilful misconduct for smoking marijuana while driving a company vehicle.

The Tribunal denied the request for early dismissal, finding that the ESO's decision focused solely on the misconduct and did not address the human rights issues, such as whether the applicant had a disability, whether the disability contributed to the misconduct, or whether the employer failed to accommodate him.

The applicant filed requests for reconsideration of a decision that dismissed her 11 human rights applications after she failed to participate in a summary hearing.

She argued that she had to attend the hospital emergency department on the day of the hearing and provided a medical note.

The Tribunal found the medical note insufficient as it did not explain why she was unable to participate or indicate she was incapacitated.

Given the applicant's history of failing to comply with Tribunal directions regarding her prior adjournment requests, the Tribunal concluded there were no new determinative facts or other factors outweighing the public interest in finality.

The requests for reconsideration were dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal against her employer and a personal respondent.

The respondents requested the removal of the personal respondent, accepting vicarious liability for her actions.

The applicant consented to the removal.

The Tribunal ordered the removal of the personal respondent and directed the parties to schedule mediation.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application because the applicant had concurrent proceedings before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) regarding the suitability of accommodated work.

Finding significant overlap between the issues before the Tribunal and the WSIB, the Tribunal exercised its discretion to defer the application pending the completion of the WSIB return-to-work services and the next level of the WSIB appeal.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sexual harassment in the workplace.

A concurrent grievance was also filed regarding the employer's handling of the complaint.

The applicant's union requested intervenor status, which was granted.

The Tribunal deferred the human rights application pending the conclusion of the grievance process, noting the overlap in issues and the established practice of deferring to concurrent grievance proceedings.

The applicant filed an Application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, which was previously deferred pending the conclusion of ongoing Ontario Labour Relations Board proceedings.

The Tribunal subsequently attempted to contact the applicant to determine the status of the grievance proceedings, but all correspondence was returned as undeliverable and the applicant's phone number was out of service.

As the applicant failed to update his contact information as required by Rule 1.13, the Tribunal deemed the Application abandoned pursuant to Rule 5.4 and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in the provision of services on the basis of disability (hearing impairment) against a duty counsel.

The applicant claimed the respondent failed to provide a note-taker or request an adjournment on his behalf in family court.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success because providing a note-taker or appearing in court for the applicant were outside the respondent's mandate as duty counsel, and thus no differential treatment occurred.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring submissions on whether the application should be dismissed under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant failed to file submissions by the deadline.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

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

The respondents were granted an extension to file their Response but failed to do so by the extended deadline.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondents of the consequences of failing to respond under Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The respondents were given 14 days to file a Response along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice.

The applicant sought to re-activate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the outcome of related proceedings before the Divisional Court, Court of Appeal, and Supreme Court of Canada regarding a Social Benefits Tribunal decision.

The Tribunal granted the request to re-activate the application as the other proceedings had concluded.

The Tribunal scheduled a further hearing to receive submissions on whether the application should be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code or the doctrine of issue estoppel, in light of recent Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence.

The applicant, a police officer with permanent medical restrictions preventing him from performing front-line duties, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability after being transferred to the Central Alternative Response Unit (CARU) and having his firearm removed.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario dismissed the application, finding that the transfer and the removal of the firearm were appropriate accommodations that allowed the applicant to continue working as a police officer.

The Tribunal held that the employer's actions fulfilled its duty to accommodate and did not constitute discrimination, as the applicant was not entitled to his preferred accommodation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal following her dismissal.

The respondent requested that allegations of incidents occurring more than one year prior to the dismissal be dismissed for delay.

The Tribunal found that the prior incidents did not form a series with the dismissal and that the applicant's pursuit of internal and civil remedies did not constitute a good faith reason for the delay.

The Tribunal dismissed the untimely allegations.

The Tribunal also granted in part the applicant's request for production, ordering the respondent to produce arguably relevant documents related to the termination.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of her claim under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act.

The Tribunal found that the WSIAT claim had concluded and the respondents did not file a response to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request to reactivate the application and directed the respondents to file their responses.

The applicant alleged that her former employer discriminated against her on the basis of race, colour, marital status, family status, and association with a person identified by a Code ground.

She claimed that racial slurs were directed at her black husband during a company Christmas party and that her employment was subsequently terminated because of her association with him.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario found that the employer was unaware of the alleged racial slurs and that the applicant's termination was based on performance issues, not discriminatory grounds.

The Tribunal also dismissed the family status claim, finding no connection between her termination and her family responsibilities.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application which was previously deferred.

The Tribunal subsequently wrote to the applicant requesting an update on the deferred proceedings and warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant failed to respond within the specified time.

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