HRTO 2013

The applicants filed a Request for an Order During Proceeding to reactivate their human rights applications, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of related provincial offences proceedings arising from a traffic stop.

The respondents opposed the request because the applicants had appealed their convictions, meaning the court proceedings were still ongoing.

The Tribunal denied the request to reactivate, finding it inappropriate to proceed and make factual findings while key factual issues regarding the traffic stop remained before the courts on appeal.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination regarding his pension benefits following a change in his union in 2004.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for delay, as the application was filed in 2012.

The applicant submitted that he was scheduled to retire in February 2013 and had not yet received his pension statement.

The Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the application was out of time, as the exact date the alleged discrimination was experienced remained unclear.

The Tribunal directed that the application continue to be processed and delivered to the respondent.

The respondents requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because a key witness had to travel overseas on short notice due to a family emergency.

The applicant opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, ordering that the hearing proceed as scheduled for the applicant's evidence and the respondents' other witnesses, with the hearing to be adjourned thereafter to a later date when the unavailable witness could testify.

The applicant, a 59-year-old temporary agency worker, alleged age discrimination when the respondent packaging company hired a younger temporary worker for a permanent machine operator position.

The applicant also alleged that her temporary agency failed to investigate her complaint of discrimination.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the packaging company, finding it provided a credible, non-discriminatory explanation that the younger worker was better qualified based on speed and accuracy.

The Tribunal also dismissed the application against the temporary agency, finding it was unaware of the applicant's discrimination concerns and had no duty to investigate complaints based merely on seniority.

The applicant sought to amend her human rights application to include allegations of discrimination on the basis of race, colour, and disability, and to add events that occurred after the initial filing, including her termination.

The respondent objected due to delay and prejudice.

The Tribunal allowed the amendments, noting that the respondent had already addressed the subsequent events in its Response, minimizing any prejudice.

The Tribunal deferred ruling on the respondent's request for third-party production until the third party was properly served.

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, directing the applicant to respond by a specified date.

The applicant failed to respond to the NOID.

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

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment against Bell Technical Solutions Inc. The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to provide submissions on whether the matter fell under federal jurisdiction, noting a previous decision finding the respondent's employment relations were federally regulated.

The applicant failed to provide submissions within the required time.

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 respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to set aside a previous Interim Decision that deemed it to have accepted all allegations in the human rights application due to a failure to respond.

The respondent explained that it assumed its accountant had filed the response.

Given the lack of prejudice to the applicant and the significant consequences for the respondent, the Tribunal exercised its discretion to set aside the previous decision and permitted the respondent to file a response.

The applicant, a taxi driver, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination after the respondents banned taxi drivers from using the washrooms at the Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport passenger transfer facility.

The respondents requested early dismissal, arguing the facility is a federal undertaking subject to exclusive federal jurisdiction over aeronautics and navigation.

The Tribunal noted the applicant had also filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission and ordered the parties to provide updates on that process to determine whether deferral is appropriate, with a preliminary hearing on jurisdiction to follow if necessary.

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

The application was deferred pending the outcome of an Employment Standards Act claim.

After the ESA claim concluded, the applicant failed to file a request to reactivate the human rights application within the 60-day time limit under Rule 14.4, waiting over 12 months to do so.

The applicant argued that a severe back condition and ignorance of the rules caused the delay.

The Tribunal rejected these explanations, finding the applicant was capable of filing lengthy submissions during the period of alleged incapacity and had been informed of the rules.

The application was dismissed for delay.

The requesting respondents brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings to remove the individual respondents from the human rights application.

The Tribunal applied the Persaud factors and found no compelling reason to continue the application against most of the individual respondents, as the corporate respondent accepted deemed liability and the application did not allege they acted outside the scope of their employment.

However, the Tribunal declined to remove one individual respondent, Zeyna Erdogan, because the allegations against her arguably amounted to harassment under section 5(2) of the Code, for which the corporate respondent would not be vicariously liable under section 46.3(1).

The applicant filed an application alleging a contravention of a settlement agreement.

The respondent acknowledged an administrative error and requested the applicant contact their counsel to complete the settlement.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to indicate her intentions.

The applicant failed to respond.

The application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

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

The respondents failed to file a Response by the deadline set in the Notice of Application.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision directing the respondents to file a Response within 14 days, along with an explanation for the delay, warning that failure to do so could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice to them under Rule 5.5.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination based on disability, which was deferred pending the conclusion of related WSIB proceedings.

The applicant requested to reactivate the application following a WSIB Appeals Resolution Officer decision, but the respondent opposed the request because it had appealed that decision to the WSIAT.

The applicant also requested to amend her application to include her subsequent termination of employment.

The Tribunal denied the request to reactivate due to the ongoing WSIAT appeal, but granted the request to amend the application on consent.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, specifically the failure to accommodate her need for a modified schedule.

The respondent and the applicant's union requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the conclusion of an ongoing workplace grievance.

The Tribunal declined to consider the deferral request at this stage, directing the respondent to file a complete Response within 21 days before any preliminary matters are addressed.

The respondent requested a reconsideration of a final decision that found he discriminated against the applicant by refusing to rent her a main floor apartment because of her disability.

The respondent argued under Rule 26.5(c) but merely repeated arguments made at the hearing and raised new issues regarding property damage and unpaid rent.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, noting that reconsideration is not an appeal or an opportunity to reargue the case, and that the new tenancy issues fall under the jurisdiction of the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a teleconference hearing scheduled to address the respondent's request to dismiss the application as an abuse of process due to an alleged settlement.

The applicant also requested disclosure of performance and bonus documents.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, finding no exceptional circumstances as the applicant had ample time to retain counsel.

The Tribunal also denied the disclosure request, as the requested documents were not relevant to the preliminary issue of whether a settlement had been reached.

The applicant requested a deferral of his human rights application and an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates to allow the parties to negotiate a global settlement that would also resolve a pending civil action.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the civil action involved different legal issues and that ongoing settlement negotiations do not constitute exceptional circumstances justifying an adjournment under the Tribunal's practice directions.

The applicant requested to reactivate her human rights Application, which had been deferred pending the completion of a complaint filed with the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC).

The CHRC declined to deal with the complaint on the basis that the respondent falls under provincial jurisdiction.

As the respondent did not oppose the request, the Tribunal ordered the Application to proceed and directed the Registrar to set a mediation date.