HRTO 2013

The applicant, a transit operator, alleged discrimination on the basis of colour and sex against her supervisor regarding a comment about a washroom break and subsequent discipline for insubordination.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success and considered a request to dismiss under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal dismissed the discrimination allegation regarding the comment for having no reasonable prospect of success, as there was no evidence beyond the applicant's perception linking the comment to her race or gender.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations regarding the discipline under section 45.1, finding that the substance of the allegations had been appropriately dealt with and settled in a prior grievance process.

The applicant, a security guard of Jewish and Israeli background, alleged that his employment was terminated and he was harassed by the respondents because of his ethnic origin and place of origin.

He also alleged reprisal.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's loss of assignments was due to his own misconduct and client complaints, not discriminatory factors.

The Tribunal also found insufficient evidence to support the allegations of workplace harassment and reprisal.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a child with complex disabilities, alleged that the Ministry's funding regime discriminated against him based on disability and family status, potentially forcing his grandmother to give up custody to obtain necessary treatment.

The applicant requested to expedite the Tribunal proceedings.

The Ministry opposed, arguing the matter should be deferred pending a related child protection proceeding.

The Tribunal declined to defer, noting the child protection proceeding would not address the human rights allegations.

The Tribunal granted the request to expedite, finding the circumstances truly urgent given the potential loss of treatment or the parent-child relationship.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the application appeared to fail to identify specific acts of discrimination.

The applicant filed supplementary materials specifying the ground of alleged discrimination as disability.

The Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the application fell outside its jurisdiction and ordered that the application proceed and be served on the respondents.

In an interim decision during a human rights application alleging racial discrimination in a police traffic stop, the Tribunal ruled on several procedural and disclosure issues.

The Tribunal allowed amendments to the application, bifurcated the hearing, and denied a media request to record the proceedings.

On disclosure, the Tribunal ordered the production of certain police procedures and records check policies, but denied requests for note-taking and traffic stop policies.

The Tribunal also dismissed the respondents' claim that records of a third-party police complaint were protected by statutory privilege under the Police Services Act, finding that HRTO proceedings are not 'civil proceedings' and fall within the 'law enforcement' exception to the secrecy provisions.

The applicant filed an application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code alleging discrimination in employment.

The applicant failed to file a list of arguably relevant documents and pre-hearing materials as directed by the Notice of Hearing.

The Tribunal issued two Case Assessment Directions ordering the applicant to comply with her pre-hearing obligations, warning that failure to do so could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to comply with both directions.

The respondent filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking dismissal.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not intend to proceed and dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant alleged discrimination with respect to services because of race and colour by two police officers outside BMO Field.

BMO Field filed a Request for Summary Hearing to be removed as a respondent, arguing it is not a legal entity and no allegations were made against it.

The applicant consented to the removal, noting he mistakenly named BMO Field instead of the security guards' employer.

The Tribunal removed BMO Field as a respondent on consent.

The individual respondents in a human rights application requested an order for further particulars, arguing that the applicant's allegations were framed in general terms.

The applicant opposed the request, believing that the Tribunal's acceptance of his application precluded such a request.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting that the respondents are entitled to know precisely what is alleged against them to prepare their case, and ordered the applicant to provide the requested particulars.

The applicants requested that their two human rights applications, which involved identical medical evidence, be dealt with in separate summary hearings.

The Tribunal had previously directed that the summary hearings be consolidated.

The applicants' next friend objected to the consolidation.

The Tribunal held that under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, it has the power to consolidate hearings even without the parties' consent.

The request for separate hearings was denied and the summary hearings were ordered to proceed together.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application as abandoned after he failed to attend a scheduled summary hearing.

The applicant argued he did not attend because he lacked legal representation at the time and did not intend to abandon the application.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had not established any of the threshold criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26, noting that lack of counsel does not excuse a party from attending a hearing or requesting an adjournment.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant, a Black high school student, alleged racial discrimination by his school board regarding a five-day suspension for physical contact with a teacher and his participation in an entrepreneurship program.

At the conclusion of the applicant's evidence during the hearing, the respondent requested the application be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant provided only speculation and subjective feelings, failing to establish any link between his race and the suspension or his withdrawal from the entrepreneurship program.

The application was dismissed.

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

The applicant failed to comply with pre-hearing obligations to deliver and file documents and witness lists.

After failing to respond to a Case Assessment Direction warning that the application could be dismissed as abandoned, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant alleged that the respondents breached the Minutes of Settlement by failing to mail the settlement funds by the agreed-upon date.

The respondents processed the cheque a few days prior but due to an administrative error, it was not mailed on time.

Upon being notified, the respondents immediately sent the funds by same-day courier, resulting in a delay of at most three days.

The Tribunal found that the minor delay, which was promptly rectified, constituted a minor breach but did not warrant a remedial order.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment by her former employer and union following a workplace injury.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed for delay and lack of reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the employer because it was filed more than one year after the last incident without a good faith explanation for the delay, and was barred by Minutes of Settlement.

The application against the union was dismissed because the Ontario Labour Relations Board had already dealt with the substance of the allegations and there was no reasonable prospect of proving the union's actions were discriminatory.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to services because of creed.

The applicant failed to file pre-hearing documents as directed by the Tribunal and requested an adjournment due to travel, which was denied.

Following the applicant's continued failure to file documents or respond to a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking dismissal, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability following his termination after a workplace injury.

The applicant had also commenced a civil action in the Superior Court of Justice based on the same facts, seeking damages for breach of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal dismissed the application under section 34(11) of the Code, which bars an application when a civil proceeding seeking remedies for the same alleged infringement has been commenced and not finally determined or withdrawn.

The applicant sought to amend his human rights application to add 32 additional incidents of alleged racial profiling by police between 2006 and 2012, and to add 52 individual police officers as respondents.

The respondent objected, arguing the incidents were out of time and did not constitute a 'series of incidents'.

The Tribunal found that the additional incidents, which all involved the applicant being stopped by police while walking or driving, formed a series of incidents under s. 34(1) of the Code and were therefore timely.

The Tribunal allowed the amendment to add the incidents but ordered the applicant to serve the request on the individual officers before determining whether they could be added as respondents.

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

Following mediation, the applicant failed to communicate with the Tribunal or comply with Rules 16 and 17 regarding the filing of witness lists and documents.

After failing to respond to a Case Assessment Direction warning of potential dismissal, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed five separate human rights applications against five taxi companies alleging discriminatory pricing for accessible cabs.

The applicant sought to consolidate the applications.

Four of the respondents consented to consolidation.

The fifth respondent, Crown Taxi Inc., opposed consolidation on the basis that it did not operate accessible cabs and sought to be removed as a respondent.

The Tribunal consolidated the four consenting applications but ordered the application against Crown Taxi Inc. to proceed separately, as its preliminary jurisdictional issue did not share common issues of fact and law with the others.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the application on the basis that it appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice by the specified deadline.

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