HRTO 2013

The respondent filed a Request for Order seeking to dismiss the human rights application under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, arguing the applicant had commenced a civil action for the same alleged infringement.

Counsel for the applicant in the civil action subsequently advised that the applicant agreed to withdraw the human rights application.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as withdrawn and noted that, in any event, it was barred by section 34(11) of the Code due to the concurrent civil action.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates in her human rights application, citing medical reasons supported by a doctor's note indicating debilitation from fatigue and respiratory issues.

The respondent opposed the adjournment, noting a history of delay and requesting dismissal.

The Tribunal found the medical information sufficient to support the adjournment request and granted it, while directing the parties to consider mediation and setting deadlines for the applicant's outstanding Reply.

The applicant sought remedies following a liability decision finding the respondent discriminated against her based on age by withdrawing an employment offer.

The Tribunal awarded $1,815 for loss of opportunity, finding a 50% likelihood she would have continued employment beyond an initial unpaid placement.

The Tribunal also awarded $15,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, noting the arbitrary and humiliating nature of the summary rejection.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex and family status by a family court judge during an ex parte motion.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the allegations against the judge were barred by the doctrine of adjudicative immunity and that no allegations were made against the Attorney General.

The respondent requested to amend its Response after retaining legal counsel, and the self-represented applicant requested a four to six week extension of time to comply with disclosure obligations in order to seek legal advice.

The Tribunal granted the respondent's request to amend its Response, finding no prejudice to the applicant.

The Tribunal also granted an extension of time for disclosure to both parties, but limited the extension to approximately three weeks rather than the requested four to six weeks, and declined to adjourn the scheduled hearing dates.

The applicant requested that her human rights application against an individual respondent for alleged discriminatory remarks be consolidated with a fresh application against her housing co-operative for failing to investigate the remarks and for vicarious liability.

The co-operative opposed the consolidation, arguing the applications raised distinct issues and would cause prejudice.

The Tribunal applied the Lattey factors and granted the consolidation, finding that the applications raised interrelated facts and issues, and that consolidation would serve the public interest by avoiding a multiplicity of proceedings without causing significant prejudice to the respondents.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his application alleging age discrimination in a hiring process.

The applicant argued that the adjudicator erred in assessing the credibility of the respondent's witness regarding when he would be contacted after a job interview.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the applicant's submissions amounted to a re-argument of issues already addressed in the original decision and did not meet the criteria for reconsideration under the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of disability, specifically regarding the respondent's failure to accommodate her need for administrative work following a corporate restructuring.

Prior to the hearing, the applicant, her union, and the respondent signed Minutes of Settlement resolving a grievance on the same issue, which explicitly acknowledged that the provided accommodation met her needs.

The Tribunal dismissed the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, finding that the grievance settlement constituted another proceeding that had appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application.

The respondent failed to file a response by the deadline.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondent to file a response within 14 days, along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because its counsel was unable to attend due to recent medical issues.

The applicant's representative did not oppose the request but submitted that medical documentation should be provided.

The Tribunal held that counsel, as an officer of the court, is not required to provide medical documentation.

Finding that the sudden medical issues constituted exceptional circumstances, the Tribunal granted the adjournment and cancelled the scheduled hearing dates.

The Tribunal previously deferred and then reactivated a human rights application, ordering the respondent to file a Response.

The respondent failed to do so, citing ongoing settlement negotiations.

After negotiations failed, the Tribunal again directed the respondent to file a Response, which was ignored.

The Tribunal issued this interim decision warning the respondent that failure to file a Response within 14 days could result in the Tribunal proceeding without them and deeming them to have accepted the allegations, pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

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, a cleaner, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of sex (pregnancy) after the respondent ceased providing her with work.

As her pregnancy advanced, the applicant requested modified duties to avoid cleaning large floors and bathtubs on her hands and knees.

The respondent offered a one-time modification but subsequently issued a Record of Employment indicating illness or injury, effectively terminating her active employment.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's requirement to clean by hand was prima facie discriminatory and that the respondent failed to meet both its procedural and substantive obligations to accommodate the applicant to the point of undue hardship.

The Tribunal awarded $13,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, $1,962 for lost wages, and ordered public interest remedies including human rights training.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination.

The individual respondent failed to file a Response despite multiple notices and directions from the Tribunal.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision deeming the individual respondent to have waived all rights to notice or participation in the proceedings.

However, because the organizational respondent filed a Response disputing the allegations, the Tribunal declined to deem the individual respondent to have accepted the allegations, requiring the applicant to prove them at a hearing.

The applicants requested that their human rights applications, which had been deferred pending grievance proceedings, be held in abeyance following the settlement of those grievances.

The respondents argued the applications should be dismissed or withdrawn pursuant to a Memorandum of Agreement.

The Tribunal declined to hold the matters in abeyance, noting that deferral is intended to avoid concurrent proceedings and the grievance process had concluded.

The Tribunal directed the applicants to either file a request to withdraw the applications or a request to reactivate them within 7 days, failing which the applications may be deemed abandoned.

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

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation session and did not respond to subsequent Tribunal correspondence inquiring about his intentions.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking various orders, including the production of affidavits and occurrence reports, polygraph testing of witnesses, the addition of parties, and a deferral of the application pending court proceedings.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding the evidentiary and party addition requests premature as a Summary Hearing was already scheduled to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal also noted it does not order polygraph testing and found no basis to defer the application as the applicant failed to provide sufficient details about the related court proceedings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sexual harassment and discrimination in employment against a franchisee, its owner, and the franchisor, Wimpy's Diner.

The franchisor requested to be removed as a respondent on the basis that it was not the applicant's employer and did not exercise day-to-day control over the franchisee.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting its consistent practice of declining to dismiss applications against franchisors at a preliminary stage, as the issue of franchisor liability requires a full hearing.

The respondents brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings to consolidate ten human rights applications alleging discrimination in housing based on the posting of offensive messages.

The respondents also filed a Request for Summary Hearing.

The Tribunal granted the request to consolidate, finding common issues of fact and law and a compelling public interest in avoiding a multiplicity of proceedings.

The Request for Summary Hearing was denied without reasons.

The respondent Union requested an order directing the applicant to provide further particulars regarding his marital status discrimination claim and to produce unedited recordings, medical documentation, and his complete employment file.

The Union also requested that the respondent City produce documents relating to performance evaluations.

The Tribunal dismissed the requests, finding that the applicant had already provided sufficient particulars in his witness statements and had disclosed the arguably relevant materials.

The Tribunal also found that the City's performance evaluation policies were not arguably relevant to the applicant's claim that his position was reclassified for discriminatory reasons.