HRTO 2013

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

The respondent failed to file a Response despite multiple notices and an interim decision directing it to do so.

Pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal ordered that the respondent is deemed to have accepted all allegations in the application and waived all rights to further notice or participation in the proceeding.

The applicant alleged that the respondent breached a Memorandum of Settlement regarding funding under the Special Services at Home (SSAH) program.

The applicant argued that changes to the SSAH program, which eliminated eligibility for adults over 18, violated the respondent's commitments in the settlement.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the settlement terms were informational and specific to past funding periods, and did not guarantee ongoing eligibility or funding under the SSAH program.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal and constructive dismissal after being hired as a superintendent but assigned cleaning duties.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application did not identify any specific acts of discrimination or explain how the alleged reprisal related to claiming or enforcing a right under the Human Rights Code.

Finding that the Tribunal does not have a general power to inquire into claims of unfairness outside of the grounds listed in the Code, the adjudicator dismissed the application at the preliminary stage for lack of jurisdiction.

In an ongoing human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to services, the Tribunal addressed the production of a recording of the applicant's arrest.

The recording was in the possession of the applicant's criminal counsel, not the respondent police services board.

With the respondents' consent and the Crown indicating no objection to the use of police-generated materials where the police are defending themselves, the Tribunal ordered the applicant to obtain and produce the recording to the respondents.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to membership in a vocational association because of creed.

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

The applicant failed to attend the summary hearing despite receiving notice.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

At the commencement of the hearing for an application alleging discrimination based on family status, the intervenor union requested to withdraw on consent.

The Tribunal granted the request and removed the union from the style of cause.

The applicant, a police officer, filed a human rights application alleging sex discrimination dating back to 2002, including allegations related to maternity leaves taken after 2005.

The respondent requested dismissal of the pre-2005 allegations as out of time, and dismissal of other allegations on the basis that they were appropriately dealt with in grievance proceedings.

The Tribunal found that the pre-2005 allegations were not part of a series of incidents with the post-2005 allegations and dismissed them as out of time.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application under section 45.1, finding the grievances did not appropriately deal with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal also granted the applicant's request to amend the application to include recent allegations of discrimination and reprisal.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of a disciplinary process by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

The respondents opposed the reactivation, arguing it was premature because the penalty phase of the College process was still outstanding.

The Tribunal agreed with the respondents, finding that the College process was not yet complete and denying the request to reactivate the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that an external investigator (the Swan respondents) discriminated against her in preparing a report on her workplace harassment complaint, and that the University discriminated against her by relying on that report.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether the application had a reasonable prospect of success and whether adjudicative immunity applied.

The Tribunal found that the Swan respondents acted as neutral, quasi-judicial decision-makers and were therefore protected by the doctrine of adjudicative immunity.

The Tribunal also found that the claim against the University had no reasonable prospect of success because the University reasonably relied on the investigator's report, which had not been quashed on judicial review.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred pending the outcome of two concurrent grievances filed by the applicant's union, which concerned the same facts and issues.

The Tribunal found that proceeding with the application would lead to duplicative legal processes and potentially inconsistent findings.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance arbitration.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order during Proceedings seeking the production of documents, including his employment file and PDA records.

The Tribunal declined to consider the request because the Application had previously been deferred pending the outcome of the applicant's grievance and arbitration process.

The applicant may renew the request if the Application is re-activated.

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

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed several preliminary requests.

The applicant's request for particulars was denied, while his request to amend the application to add a claim for monetary compensation was granted.

The union's request to intervene was granted over the applicant's objections, as the union had a requisite interest in the matter.

Finally, the Tribunal ordered the parties to provide an update on the status of concurrent grievances before deciding whether to defer the application.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding requested an in-person summary hearing, accommodation in the form of a typist and counsellor, and permission to record the hearing for online streaming.

The Tribunal denied the request for an in-person hearing as the medical assessment did not support it as a necessary accommodation.

The Tribunal permitted the applicant to have a support person attend the teleconference to assist with notes and support.

The request to record the hearing for public consumption was denied as inappropriate.

The applicant, who has a hearing disability, alleged discrimination and reprisal by a recreational car club regarding a policy mandating CB radio use on tours.

In this interim decision, the applicant requested the production of arguably relevant documents, including policies, meeting minutes, and emails.

The respondent agreed to produce the documents but requested a two-month extension because its representative had been out of the country.

The Tribunal found the documents met the test for arguable relevance and ordered the respondent to produce them within 14 days, noting the delay and the straightforward nature of the request.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing, citing a conflict with her year-end school exams.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the applicant failed to provide specific information or documentation from her college to establish exceptional circumstances as required by the Tribunal's Practice Direction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal and discrimination based on sex following her termination.

The respondents argued the application was an abuse of process because the parties had previously signed a settlement agreement and release resolving the applicant's grievance.

The Tribunal found no evidence of duress or lack of capacity to invalidate the settlement.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process and for having no reasonable prospect of success regarding post-termination events.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because the applicant had filed a grievance based on the same facts and issues.

The Tribunal found that the facts and issues in both proceedings were the same and that the grievance was moving forward.

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

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

The respondents requested dismissal of the application under s. 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the applicant had commenced a civil action seeking damages for the same alleged Code infringements.

The Tribunal found that the civil claim arose from the same factual context and sought remedies for the same alleged infringements regarding ethnicity and place of origin.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed those allegations for lack of jurisdiction and directed the applicant to provide further particulars if she wished to proceed with the age discrimination claim.

The applicant requested to re-activate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the receipt of her WSIB file.

The respondent consented to the re-activation on the condition that it be allowed 35 days to file a Response.

The Tribunal ordered the application re-activated and granted the respondent 35 days to file its Response.

During the hearing of an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, an issue arose regarding the disclosure of the applicant's Occupational Health and Safety file.

The file contained medical information and clinical notes.

The Tribunal ordered the disclosure of the file to all parties, with the restriction that the medical information only be shared with representatives and witnesses who need to know it and only be used for the purposes of the application.