HRTO 2013

The applicant filed a human rights application but subsequently failed to respond to two Case Assessment Directions requiring him to confirm his intention to participate in the scheduled hearing.

Noting that there was no indication the directions were not received and no communication from the applicant, the Tribunal concluded the application had been abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding alleging disability discrimination and reprisal filed two requests for orders during proceedings.

The first request sought to add a narrative document to his application, which the Tribunal granted as an amendment to the pleadings because it provided necessary particulars.

The second request sought production of various employment and phone records.

The Tribunal dismissed the production request because the applicant failed to establish the arguable relevance of the documents, though he was granted leave to renew the request after the respondent complied with its overdue initial disclosure obligations.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The original application was dismissed because an arbitration award had already appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The applicant argued the decision conflicted with established case law and misunderstood his submissions.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding the applicant was merely attempting to re-argue his case and failed to establish any of the criteria required for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of a decision that dismissed her application as abandoned due to her failure to comply with pre-hearing disclosure obligations.

The applicant indicated she had retained counsel but provided no submissions of fact or law corresponding to the grounds for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

The Tribunal dismissed the Request for Reconsideration.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order to reactivate a human rights application that had been deferred on consent pending the conclusion of a grievance process.

The grievance arbitrator determined he lacked jurisdiction over the entire grievance.

The respondent did not file a response to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, ordered the application to proceed, and directed the Registrar to set a hearing date.

The applicant, a high school student with a disability, filed two applications against the respondent school board and several of its employees.

The first application alleged a breach of a 2009 settlement agreement regarding the transfer of the applicant's student record and the destruction of documents.

The second application alleged discrimination based on disability for the respondent's refusal to pay transportation costs to a school in another board and its failure to prepare a transition plan.

Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal dismissed both applications.

The breach of settlement allegations were dismissed as untimely and having no reasonable prospect of success.

The discrimination allegations were dismissed as an abuse of process and having no reasonable prospect of success, given that the applicant had not attended any of the respondent's schools since 2009.

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

He subsequently requested to add his spouse as a co-applicant.

Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal treated the request as a new application filed on the spouse's behalf and consolidated the two applications.

The Tribunal dismissed several allegations, including those related to subsidy information, an ODSP drug card, and certain repair issues, on the bases of delay and having no reasonable prospect of success.

The remaining allegations concerning the timing of a move to a new unit and specific disability-related repair issues were permitted to proceed.

The respondents requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates on the basis that their counsel was unavailable on one of the dates, and the parties believed the hearing would not conclude in the allotted time.

The applicant consented to the request.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, finding that the reasons offered did not constitute exceptional circumstances as required by the Tribunal's Practice Direction for requests made outside the 14-day rescheduling period.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by the respondent, with whom she had a solicitor-client relationship.

The applicant also had an active complaint before the Law Society of Upper Canada (LSUC) based on similar facts.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the application pending the conclusion of the LSUC proceeding.

Finding that the LSUC proceeding was at a more advanced stage and to avoid duplication of evidence and inconsistent findings, the Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the human rights application pending the outcome of the applicant's WSIB claim.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment based on disability, specifically failure to accommodate, reduction in hourly rate, and assignment of work exceeding physical restrictions.

The Tribunal denied the deferral request, finding that the issues before the WSIB (the cause of the injury) did not sufficiently overlap with the human rights issues (the duty to accommodate regardless of cause).

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the parties to fulfill their pre-hearing disclosure obligations, including providing witness lists and documents.

The respondent complied, but the self-represented applicant failed to provide any of the required materials or confirm his intention to testify.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned and cancelled the scheduled hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming the respondents failed to accommodate her workplace injury.

The respondents sought to dismiss portions of the application on the basis that they fell outside the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing on the issue of delay.

The Tribunal found that the earlier incidents, including banning the applicant from work and keeping her off work without pay, had a sufficient nexus to the timely incident of returning her to an unsuitable position.

The Tribunal concluded the allegations constituted a series of incidents under section 34(1)(b) of the Code and dismissed the respondents' request to dismiss the application for delay.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order to amend his human rights application and re-activate it from deferred status.

He submitted a Social Benefits Tribunal decision finding him to be a person with a disability.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the applicant had not provided information on whether his appeal of the April 2008 WSIB decision had been concluded, which was the condition for the deferral.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to services by the respondent police services board and officers.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed the conduct of the upcoming hearing and outstanding production issues.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to produce specific documents related to the applicant's arrests and seized computer, subject to a strict confidentiality order.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the applicant's human rights application pending the resolution of his wrongful dismissal action in Small Claims Court.

The applicant opposed deferral, noting the civil action had been adjourned sine die pending the human rights application.

The Tribunal found that the issues in the two proceedings were distinct, as the civil claim only addressed reasonable notice, while the human rights application alleged discrimination and harassment.

The Tribunal declined to defer the application and directed the respondent to file a response.

The personal respondent requested a deferral of the human rights application pending the completion of concurrent criminal proceedings against him for sexual assault with a weapon, arising from the same alleged workplace incident.

The applicant opposed the deferral, arguing the human rights application was broader in scope.

The Tribunal granted the deferral, finding that proceeding concurrently risked inconsistent findings of fact and could jeopardize the personal respondent's Charter right to remain silent in the criminal proceeding.

The applicant's alternative request to proceed against the corporate respondent only was also denied to avoid duplicative proceedings.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, record of offences, and reprisal.

The applicant brought several requests for orders during the proceeding, including requests for an expedited hearing, a Tribunal-Ordered Inquiry, early production of documents, and an order to protect prospective witnesses.

The Tribunal denied all of the applicant's requests, finding that the request to expedite did not meet the required test, the requests for inquiry and document production were premature prior to mediation, and no valid reasons were provided for the witness protection order.

The matter was directed to proceed to mediation.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing due to a medical condition requiring hospitalization and rehabilitation.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment based on the extraordinary circumstances of the applicant's illness.

Additionally, the Tribunal noted the applicant's failure to file required hearing documents by the previous deadline and set a new deadline, warning that failure to comply could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on race and colour more than two years after the last alleged incident.

The applicant argued the delay was in good faith due to medical conditions, a motor vehicle accident, and ongoing criminal proceedings.

The Tribunal found that the medical evidence did not establish that her condition prevented her from filing in a timely manner.

Furthermore, waiting for criminal proceedings to conclude does not constitute a good faith reason for delay, especially since the applicant waited an additional 15 months after the charges were dropped before filing.

The application was dismissed as out of time.

The applicant requested to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of a Small Claims Court wrongful dismissal action against the corporate respondent.

Having received the required documents confirming the Small Claims Court matter was officially concluded, the Tribunal granted the request and ordered the application to proceed.