HRTO 2013

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability against her employer and her union.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether the allegations against the union had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant alleged that the union failed to inform her of decisions, provided misleading information, delayed accommodation, and failed to inform her of union meetings.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to point to any evidence linking the union's actions or inactions to her disability, or showing that the union participated in a discriminatory rule or impeded the employer's accommodation efforts.

The application against the union was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in services on the basis of race, colour, and disability.

A summary hearing was scheduled, but the applicant failed to appear.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

Shortly after the hearing, the respondent forwarded a letter from the applicant seeking to withdraw the application, but as the decision to dismiss had already been made, the dismissal stood.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment more than one year after her termination.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed for delay.

The applicant argued the delay was incurred in good faith due to severe depression and anxiety.

The Tribunal found the medical evidence insufficient to establish that her condition prevented her from filing on time, noting she had retained counsel to send a demand letter within the one-year period.

The application was dismissed for failing to meet the statutory time limit.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application as abandoned after he failed to disclose arguably relevant documents.

The applicant claimed he did not receive the first Case Assessment Direction sent by e-mail and did not check his e-mail for the second due to the birth of a child.

The Tribunal granted the reconsideration request, finding that exceptional circumstances, including an administrative error by the Tribunal and the applicant's continued desire to pursue the application, outweighed the public interest in finality.

The applicant filed an application alleging reprisal in employment contrary to the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, directing the applicant to provide submissions.

The applicant failed to respond by the deadline.

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

The respondents requested an order for the production of the applicant's psychiatric records, arguing they were relevant to his claims of mental anguish resulting from alleged discrimination.

The applicant opposed the request.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to produce arguably relevant medical records from his psychiatrist from one year prior to the alleged incident to the present, finding them relevant to both liability and remedy.

The Tribunal also declined to bifurcate the hearing between liability and remedy.

In an ongoing human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to services, the Tribunal previously ordered the applicant to produce a recording of his arrest or file submissions opposing its production.

The applicant was unable to comply with the original time limit.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision granting an extension, ordering the applicant to provide a copy of the recording or written submissions explaining his opposition by April 19, 2013.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the allegations did not appear to raise any Code grounds.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice and did not communicate with the Tribunal for three years.

The application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of disability, claiming he was terminated after injuring his back at work.

The applicant also had an outstanding claim with the WSIB for benefits arising out of the same workplace injury.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer, and neither party provided submissions.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the WSIB proceedings to avoid concurrent proceedings and the risk of inconsistent findings of fact.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Confirmation of Hearing and a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to file documents and witness statements.

The applicant failed to comply with these directions and did not communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the Application on the basis that it appeared to be outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice by the specified deadline.

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 issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the application on the basis that it appeared to be outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice by the specified deadline.

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

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking the production of documents related to the respondents' internal investigation into her allegations of sexual harassment.

Although the request was made prior to mediation, the respondents consented to producing the documents on the condition that they only be used for the purpose of the proceeding.

The Tribunal directed the respondents to produce the documents and reminded the parties of Rule 3.3 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, which prohibits the use of produced documents for any other purpose.

The respondent in a human rights application brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend its Response to correct inadvertent errors in two paragraphs of its narrative.

The self-represented applicant opposed the request, arguing it was an attempt to hide the truth.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting that the hearing was months away, disclosure had not yet been exchanged, and the amendments were limited in scope.

The Tribunal also directed the parties to address the proper identity of the respondent, as the restaurant in question was a franchise.

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

The respondent requested early dismissal, arguing the applicant had signed a mutual release when selling her mobile home to the respondent to settle eviction proceedings, and that the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period.

The Tribunal found that the mutual release was valid and barred claims related to the sale of the home, as the applicant understood the document and was not under duress.

For the remaining allegations, the Tribunal found the application was filed out of time and the applicant failed to demonstrate that the delay was incurred in good faith due to her disability or reliance on legal advice.

The application was dismissed.

The respondent school board sought an order relieving it from complying with a previous interim order requiring it to return the applicant student to school, alleging the student's mother breached communication restrictions.

The applicant cross-moved to amend the interim order to permit direct communication and remove a trespass notice.

The Tribunal found that communication by the mother's legal counsel regarding an alleged incident did not breach the interim order.

The Tribunal dismissed both requests, maintaining the original interim order and communication restrictions pending the final hearing.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because 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.

The applicant alleged that the Family Responsibility Office discriminated against him on the basis of disability by garnishing his disability income to enforce a spousal support order.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant could not establish that he was treated differently from others owing support payments based on his disability, as the garnishment stemmed from a court-ordered debt.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment, including unwanted sexual advances by her manager.

The manager was criminally charged in relation to the same events.

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

Both the applicant and the corporate respondent agreed to the deferral.

The Tribunal ordered the application deferred to avoid concurrent proceedings and the risk of inconsistent findings of fact.

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

The Tribunal directed a summary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success and whether the applicant should be declared a vexatious litigant.

After the applicant requested an adjournment, the Tribunal repeatedly sought mutually agreeable dates for rescheduling.

The applicant failed to respond to multiple communications from the Tribunal, including a final warning that the application could be dismissed as abandoned.

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