HRTO 2013

The applicant filed three human rights applications alleging discrimination based on disability against her employer, the Toronto Transit Commission, and her union.

The Tribunal considered whether to consolidate the applications, adjourn scheduled hearing dates, and defer the matters pending a grievance process.

Finding significant overlap in facts and law and no prejudice to the respondents, the Tribunal consolidated the applications.

The scheduled hearing dates were adjourned to allow for the exchange of pleadings, and the matters were not deferred as there were no outstanding grievances.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal following the settlement of an earlier complaint.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed on various grounds, including that parts were covered by the prior settlement, lacked particulars, or were out of time.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations regarding the delay in appointment and the failure to implement settlement terms regarding selection panels.

However, the Tribunal allowed the allegations concerning the restructuring of the applicant's department, underresourcing, and his subsequent termination to proceed, finding they constituted a series of incidents not barred by delay.

Most personal respondents were removed, except for one against whom specific allegations of reprisal were made.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application.

She alleged that the adjudicator accepted false evidence, violated the law, and abused his judicial powers.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to demonstrate that the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence or that there were other factors outweighing the public interest in the finality of decisions.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing on the basis that counsel was recently retained and needed time to review the file.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that parties are expected to retain counsel in a timely fashion and that adjournments are only granted in extraordinary circumstances.

The applicant requested a deferral of his human rights application pending the determination of a related civil claim filed in the Ontario Court of Justice.

The respondent consented to the deferral.

The Tribunal found that deferral was appropriate to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions, as the civil claim raised the same circumstances and overlapping issues.

The application was deferred.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, gender, and age, claiming she was forced to retire.

The respondent requested early dismissal, producing Minutes of Settlement and a full and final release signed by the applicant.

The Tribunal issued a Notice directing the applicant to respond to the request to dismiss, warning that failure to do so could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant failed to file submissions by the deadline.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race by the police and her employers.

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

The applicant failed to point to any evidence linking her alleged mistreatment to her race, relying instead on speculation.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant, a 92-year-old driver, alleged discrimination on the basis of age after being charged a higher automobile insurance premium than his younger daughter solely because he was over 80 years of age.

The respondent insurer argued that its rate classification scheme, which removed an older driver discount for those over 80, was a reasonable and bona fide practice protected by section 22 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontradicted expert evidence that drivers over 80 pose an elevated road safety risk and have higher loss costs per kilometre driven.

The Tribunal found that there was no practical alternative to the use of age as a risk classification factor for this group, and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment on the basis of sexual solicitation and race by a co-worker, and a failure to investigate by the employer.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application for delay and having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that most of the applicant's allegations were untimely and did not form a 'series of incidents' under section 34(1) of the Code.

However, the Tribunal allowed the allegation regarding an incident on September 21, 2011, and the related failure to investigate claim, to proceed, finding they had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the application against one respondent, Black & MacDonald, because the events occurred more than one year prior to filing.

The applicant argued the delay was in good faith due to a fear of reprisal.

The Tribunal held that fear of reprisal does not generally amount to a good faith basis for delay, especially since the applicant had pursued a WSIB claim during the same period.

The application against Black & MacDonald was dismissed.

The applicant, a university professor, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, sex, and reprisal.

The respondent university's faculty association had also filed several grievances on behalf of the applicant relating to similar factual issues, including harassment and retaliatory discipline.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the application pending the completion of the grievance proceedings.

Finding significant factual overlap and the potential for inconsistent decisions, the Tribunal exercised its discretion to defer the application until the grievance process concluded.

The applicant requested an adjournment of an upcoming summary hearing in order to amend his application to add the respondent's employer as a party.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the summary hearing was scheduled to determine whether the application had a reasonable prospect of success and whether it had been dealt with in a prior settlement.

The Tribunal held that adding a respondent was unnecessary at this stage, as the issue would become moot if the application were dismissed, and could be pursued later if it survived the summary hearing.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed her application alleging employment discrimination.

She argued there were new facts, the decision conflicted with established case law, and there was a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet the threshold criteria for reconsideration, noting that the proposed new evidence could have been obtained prior to the hearing and that disagreement with findings of fact or credibility does not justify reconsideration.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to be filed outside the one-year limitation period.

The applicant filed submissions stating the last incident occurred later than initially indicated.

The Tribunal ordered a half-day preliminary hearing to determine whether the application was filed in time or if the delay was incurred in good faith.

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

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to deliver and file a witness list, witness statements, and documents, warning that failure to do so could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to comply with the direction and had not contacted the Tribunal for several months.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application against the corporate and personal respondents.

The corporate respondent filed a response and provided a new address for the personal respondent.

The personal respondent failed to file a response by the revised deadline.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision providing the personal respondent with a final 14 days to file a response and explain the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice to him pursuant to Rule 5.5.

The respondent requested the dismissal of a human rights application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the applicant's union's unilateral withdrawal of her grievances constituted a final determination of the issues.

The Tribunal found that the withdrawal of a grievance without a formal resolution or settlement does not constitute a proceeding that appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal also rejected the respondent's argument that continuing the application was an abuse of process, noting the applicant did not consent to the withdrawal.

The request to dismiss was denied.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates due to school holidays and counsel's unavailability.

The applicant opposed the request.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario denied the adjournment, noting that absent exceptional circumstances, unavailability of counsel is not a legitimate reason to grant an adjournment under the Tribunal's Practice Direction.

The applicant filed two human rights applications which were consolidated.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to file a witness list, witness statements, and documents, warning that failure to comply could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant failed to comply or communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the Tribunal found the applications abandoned and dismissed them.

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

The Tribunal directed the parties to exchange and file documents and witness lists in advance of the hearing.

The applicant failed to comply with these directions and a subsequent Case Assessment Direction.

As the applicant did not respond or comply, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.