HRTO 2013

The applicant filed a human rights application that overlapped substantially with an ongoing union grievance that had been referred to arbitration.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer, to which neither party responded.

Applying its general practice of deferring to concurrent grievance proceedings where human rights issues can be addressed, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination at a detention centre, which was deferred pending the conclusion of related criminal proceedings.

The applicant later requested to reactivate the application, which the respondent opposed as untimely, arguing the specific charges related to the incident had concluded earlier.

The Tribunal found the request to reactivate was timely because the initial deferral order was broad enough to encompass other ongoing criminal proceedings.

The Tribunal also noted it would have exercised its discretion to reactivate regardless, given the reasonable explanation for delay and the respondent's failure to raise the issue earlier.

The application was reactivated.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging disability discrimination and reprisal against her former employer and unions, relating to events dating back to 1998 and a 2004 arbitration.

The applicant claimed the application was timely because she received financial records in September 2012 confirming no interpreter was paid for during the 2004 arbitration.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it was filed beyond the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal held that the receipt of confirming documents did not constitute a new incident of discrimination, and the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation to establish that the delay was incurred in good faith.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing based on disability, age, and receipt of public assistance.

The applicant sought to amend his application to include new allegations of retaliation and harassment, while the respondent requested a summary hearing.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to amend in part, allowing three new sufficiently particularized allegations to be added, as there was no prejudice to the respondent.

The respondent's request for a summary hearing was denied.

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 within the required timeframe.

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

The respondent requested to defer the human rights application pending the outcome of the applicant's appeal under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act.

The applicant alleged discrimination based on disability and age regarding the reduction of a meal allowance and the failure to convert his paper file to electronic form.

The Tribunal dismissed the deferral request, finding that it would not be fair, just, and expeditious to defer, as the Tribunal was the better forum to adjudicate the accommodation issue and the age discrimination issue was not before the WSIB.

The applicant filed two human rights applications alleging discrimination and reprisal by the respondents in the areas of employment, housing, services, and contracts.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant had no employment or housing relationship with the respondents, and no service relationship existed during the relevant times.

The applicant failed to propose any credible evidence to support his allegations.

The applications were dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The respondents requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision after failing to attend the hearing.

They claimed they recorded the hearing date incorrectly and were waiting for a lawyer to call them back.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the respondents had received proper notice of the hearing and their failure to attend was consistent with their earlier failures to comply with Tribunal directions.

The Tribunal concluded there were no exceptional circumstances outweighing the public interest in the finality of the decision.

The applicant filed a request to reactivate his human rights application following the conclusion of his WSIB/WSIAT appeal.

The respondent did not file a response to the request.

The Tribunal found that the WSIAT proceeding had concluded and granted the request to reactivate the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability after his driver's license was revoked and later reinstated.

The application was filed beyond the one-year time limit prescribed by section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to demonstrate that the delay was incurred in good faith, as ignorance of the time limit and alleged trauma did not excuse the failure to make timely inquiries.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding, who alleged racial profiling and discrimination by Toronto Police Service officers, served a Summons to Witness on the Chief of Police to appear at the hearing.

The Chief requested an order quashing the summons, arguing he had no direct knowledge of the incidents.

The Tribunal quashed the summons, finding the applicant failed to establish that the Chief's proposed evidence was relevant to the issues in the proceeding, as he was not present during the alleged incidents and the application did not involve detailed allegations of systemic discrimination.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application alleging workplace reprisal.

The original decision dismissed older allegations for delay and the timely allegation for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish any new determinative facts or evidence that could not have been reasonably obtained earlier, and that her submissions amounted to re-arguing issues already decided.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant requested to amend her human rights application to remove references to damages for dismissal in order to pursue other causes of action in court.

The Tribunal initially granted the request without prejudice to the respondents.

The respondents subsequently requested an extension of time to respond, claiming they missed the request due to a spam filter.

The Tribunal treated this as a request for reconsideration but ultimately upheld its original decision, finding no current abuse of process or prejudice to the respondents, and noting that the respondents could raise jurisdictional arguments if the applicant pursued a claim in court.

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to amend their Response to the Application and requesting further production of the applicant's financial and telephone records.

The Tribunal allowed the amendments related to the dates of the applicant's vacation request, as they were relevant to the respondents' defence that the applicant was not disabled.

However, the Tribunal denied the amendments adding background details about other employees.

The Tribunal also denied the requests for further document production, finding that the respondents failed to establish how the requested records would prove or disprove any factual or legal issue in dispute.

The applicant estate filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability regarding the placement of a deceased police officer's name on a memorial wall.

The respondents requested early dismissal on the grounds that the estate lacked standing.

The Tribunal held that an estate is not a 'person' capable of experiencing discrimination under the Human Rights Code, particularly where the alleged discrimination occurred after the individual's death.

The application was dismissed for lack of standing.

The respondent requested an order dismissing the application or excluding the applicant's materials due to late filing, and preventing a witness from testifying by affidavit.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss or exclude materials, finding the applicant complied with the 7-day deadline set in a previous Case Assessment Direction.

The Tribunal refused to allow the witness to testify by affidavit, noting that unavailability during a specific month is not an exceptional circumstance, but directed the applicant to advise if the witness could testify by telephone.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal at a summary hearing.

The applicant argued there were new facts or evidence and that the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to identify how any new documents would be determinative and did not provide any jurisprudence to support his claims.

The request for reconsideration was denied as it did not meet the criteria under Rule 26.5.

The applicant estate filed a human rights application alleging that a hospital policy requiring a six-month abstinence from alcohol before a liver transplant was discriminatory.

The application was filed nearly two years after the events in question.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for delay, finding that the applicant's ignorance of the law did not constitute a good faith explanation under section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code, as she had all the necessary information to make inquiries at the time.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant's request for the adjudicator to recuse himself, finding that his former employment with the Government of Ontario over 20 years ago was too remote to create a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The applicant, a black employee, alleged that the owner of the respondent company made two derogatory and racist comments to him during his employment.

The respondent denied making the comments.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence credible and consistent, while the respondent's evidence was evasive and contradictory.

The Tribunal concluded that the respondent made the discriminatory comments, which included racial slurs and stereotyping.

The Tribunal awarded the applicant $15,000 in damages for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging his former employer discriminated against him by providing a negative employment reference.

The respondent requested early dismissal, arguing the applicant had previously signed a full and final release settling a prior grievance and human rights application, and that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because an arbitrator remained seized of the settlement.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that a release cannot contractually bar future human rights claims based on subsequent events, and that parties cannot contract out of the Tribunal's statutory jurisdiction to determine contraventions of settlement.