HRTO 2013

The applicant in a human rights proceeding alleging failure to accommodate a workplace injury brought two requests for orders during proceedings.

She sought to amend her application to add allegations of reprisal and further instances of failure to accommodate, and requested particulars and documents from the respondent.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, finding the new allegations related to the original narrative and were not unduly delayed.

The Tribunal denied the requests for particulars and documents as premature, noting that the deadline for disclosure under the Tribunal's Rules had not yet passed.

The respondents requested to defer the human rights application pending the outcome of criminal charges against the personal respondent for sexual assault and criminal harassment.

The applicant opposed the deferral, citing delay and psychological trauma.

The Tribunal granted the deferral, finding that the potential impact on the personal respondent's Charter right to remain silent and the need to avoid inconsistent findings of fact outweighed the applicant's concerns regarding delay.

The applicant filed a human rights application which was deferred pending the conclusion of Employment Standards Act proceedings.

The Tribunal subsequently requested an update on the status of those proceedings and warned that failure to respond could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's letter and email.

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

The applicant requested to reschedule the hearing dates of March 20-22, 2013, because their counsel was required to appear before the British Columbia Court of Appeal.

The respondent opposed the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, vacated the March dates, and rescheduled the hearing to June 2013, with alternative dates offered in April.

The respondents requested a further extension of time to file a Response to a human rights application, citing the personal respondent's medical incapacity following a stroke.

The applicant opposed the request, noting that the respondents had recently filed a police complaint against her, demonstrating capacity to deal with legal proceedings.

The Tribunal agreed with the applicant, finding that the medical evidence did not establish an inability to file a Response, and dismissed the request for a further extension.

The respondent requested a 30-day adjournment of a scheduled hearing, alleging that his vehicle was vandalized and his documents were stolen.

The applicant opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding that the respondent failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances as required by the Tribunal's Practice Direction.

The Tribunal noted that the respondent delayed reporting the alleged theft for six weeks and failed to provide any evidence or explanation for the delay.

The hearing was ordered to proceed as scheduled, with directions for the respondent to file required materials.

The applicant filed human rights applications against two union officials, alleging discrimination on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, age, and reprisal.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether the applications should be dismissed for delay and/or having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that allegations prior to March 2008 were untimely as there was a gap of more than one year between incidents, breaking any series of incidents.

The Tribunal dismissed the remaining allegations, finding they had no reasonable prospect of success because the applicant failed to establish a link between the respondents' conduct and any prohibited ground under the Code.

The respondent requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision finding that it had created a poisoned work environment for the applicant.

The respondent argued that new evidence, including text messages and evidence of a Ministry of Labour claim, warranted reconsideration.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the evidence could reasonably have been obtained earlier, was not determinative of the case, and in some instances, further supported the applicant's allegations.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The respondents in a human rights application alleging employment discrimination based on disability and race filed a Request for an Order During Proceeding.

They sought leave to amend their Responses and to remove the personal respondent from the Application.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend the Responses, finding it fair and just with no prejudice to the applicant.

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal also removed the personal respondent, noting there were no specific allegations against her and the corporate respondent had pled that it made the employment decisions.

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

During the pleadings stage, the applicant filed a Request for Order during Proceedings seeking additional particulars and production of documents before filing his Reply.

The Tribunal denied the request for particulars, finding the respondents' Response was sufficiently detailed to allow for a meaningful Reply.

The Tribunal also denied the request for production as premature, noting that the Rules require disclosure only after a Notice of Confirmation of Hearing is issued.

The applicant filed an Application for Contravention of Settlement under section 45.9 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondent failed to file a Response by the required 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 applicant filed a human rights application but passed away before the scheduled mediation.

The Tribunal attempted to contact the applicant's Estate to determine if an Estate Trustee had been appointed and if the Estate intended to continue the application.

After receiving no response to its notice, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability, marital status, and family status by her former employer and union following her termination for innocent absenteeism.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations relating to incidents from 2009 and 2010 as untimely.

The Tribunal also dismissed the allegations against the union, finding no reasonable prospect of success as there was no evidence the union's actions were based on discriminatory factors.

However, the Tribunal declined to dismiss the timely allegations against the employer regarding the termination, finding that a prior settlement agreement between the union and employer did not appropriately deal with the substance of the human rights claim because the applicant was not a party to it.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his application alleging employment discrimination based on race and colour.

The applicant argued the decision conflicted with established case law and that other factors outweighed the finality of the decision.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to meet the threshold criteria for reconsideration, noting that disagreements with conclusions, restating arguments, and pointing out immaterial factual errors do not justify reconsideration.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on race, colour, place of origin, and ethnic origin, claiming the respondent stopped scheduling her for shifts and eventually terminated her.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed as out of time, arguing the last shift worked was more than a year before filing.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss, finding that an evidentiary hearing was necessary to determine whether the alleged unreturned calls, meeting, and delayed communication of termination constituted a series of incidents under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal also ordered a summary hearing to assess whether the application has a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant alleged that his employer and union discriminated and reprised against him by eliminating a position for which he had successfully bid.

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

The Tribunal found no reasonable prospect that the applicant could prove the employer eliminated the position as a reprisal for a previous human rights complaint, as the employer provided a legitimate explanation that the position was temporary and another employee was also affected.

The allegations against the union president were dismissed as untimely and lacking a reasonable prospect of success.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on sex, specifically failure to accommodate pregnancy-related needs.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because the applicant's union had filed a grievance based on the same facts and human rights issues, which had been referred to mediation/arbitration.

The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the application and the grievance, and deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance arbitration proceeding to avoid concurrent proceedings and contrary findings.

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

After multiple adjournments due to the applicant's and her representative's health issues, the Tribunal directed the applicant to provide specific medical information regarding her need for accommodation and when she would be ready to proceed.

The applicant failed to provide the required information and effectively requested an indefinite stay of proceedings.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant's refusal to provide the necessary information while seeking an indefinite stay amounted to an abuse of process.

The applicant, a long-term employee of the City of Mississauga, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on colour and age.

The respondent requested dismissal of the application for delay and for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the allegations prior to 2008 did not form part of a series of incidents with the 2009 allegations and that the delay in raising them was not incurred in good faith.

For the remaining allegations concerning performance management in 2008 and 2009, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant failed to point to sufficient evidence to support a reasonable prospect of proving a nexus between the performance management and his colour or age.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates due to the recent death of her father.

The respondent opposed the request, noting its own previous adjournment request had been denied.

The Tribunal found that the death of the applicant's father constituted an exceptional circumstance under its Practice Direction and granted the adjournment.