HRTO 2013

The parties requested that the human rights application be deferred pending the outcome of the applicant's appeal to the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB) regarding allegations against the individual respondent.

The Tribunal found that deferral was the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions.

The application was deferred pending the completion of the HPARB process.

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 as 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.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to remove the corporate respondent, which had been placed into receivership, and to continue the application against the individual respondents.

Because the Tribunal did not have the personal contact information for the individual respondents, the Tribunal ordered the Receiver for the corporate respondent to provide their current addresses so the applicant could deliver the request to them.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, more than one year after his termination.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for delay.

The applicant submitted that health concerns and elder care responsibilities caused the delay.

The Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the application fell outside its jurisdiction, as the applicant provided enough detail to suggest the delay might have been incurred in good faith.

The Tribunal directed that the application continue to be processed, leaving the final determination on delay to be raised by the respondent.

The applicant brought a human rights application against a police services board and individual officers.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed the applicant's request for production of documents and the respondents' request for an adjournment.

The Tribunal ordered the production of specific police notes and chain of custody documents relevant to the applicant's arrests, but denied requests for documents based on speculative allegations of conspiracy and collusion.

The Tribunal also denied the respondents' request to adjourn the hearing, finding that retaining new counsel who was unavailable for the scheduled dates did not constitute exceptional circumstances.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application because he had signed a release in favour of the respondent employer.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant merely restated his original allegations and failed to establish any of the required grounds for reconsideration under Rule 26.5, such as new evidence or a conflict with established jurisprudence.

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to defer the human rights application pending the resolution of the applicant's Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) appeal.

The applicant alleged a failure to accommodate his disability-related needs when he sought to return to work with restrictions.

The Tribunal found a significant overlap in the facts and issues between the WSIB appeal and the human rights application.

To avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions, the Tribunal granted the request and deferred the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application against Amex Bank of Canada.

The Tribunal advised the applicant that the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction because the respondent is a federally regulated bank.

The applicant did not provide submissions on the jurisdictional issue.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that under section 91(15) of the Constitution Act, 1867, the federal Parliament has exclusive jurisdiction over banking, and therefore the provincial Human Rights Code does not apply.

The complainant sought to withdraw their human rights complaint against the respondent.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario granted leave and the complaint was withdrawn.

The complainant sought to withdraw his human rights complaint against the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario granted leave to withdraw the complaint.

The applicant filed an application under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

Despite receiving notice of the hearing, neither the applicant nor her licensed representative appeared.

In the absence of any evidence or explanation for the failure to attend, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of the Tribunal's decision to dismiss his human rights application as abandoned after he failed to attend a scheduled teleconference hearing.

The applicant explained his absence by stating he was in police custody at the time.

The Tribunal denied the reconsideration request, finding that the applicant had a history of non-compliance with Tribunal rules, failed to confirm his attendance prior to his arrest, and provided no sufficient explanation for why he did not arrange for someone to notify the Tribunal of his detention.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because he was out of the country and cited financial and work-related reasons for being unable to travel to Canada.

The respondent opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding that the applicant failed to establish extraordinary circumstances as required by the Practice Direction for late requests.

The Tribunal noted that travel costs and taking time off work are not extraordinary, and the applicant's uncertainty about pursuing the application did not justify an adjournment.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondents.

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, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice to them and deem them to have accepted the allegations.

The applicant repeatedly failed to comply with his disclosure and pre-hearing obligations under the Tribunal's Rules, despite multiple reminders and warnings that his application could be dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant did not provide arguably relevant documents, a list of witnesses, or witness statements.

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

The applicant alleged discrimination based on disability when a doctor at a detention centre denied his request for specific prescription medications, resulting in withdrawal symptoms.

The respondent argued the decision was medical and the applicant lacked prescriptions.

After the applicant failed to comply with disclosure rules and confirmed he would not call his family doctor as a witness, the Tribunal held a summary hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success because the applicant could not prove a failure to accommodate without medical evidence establishing his disability-related needs.

The applicant filed an application alleging reprisal, related to a previous application alleging discrimination based on disability.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the reprisal application because the discrimination application was already deferred pending an outstanding grievance.

The applicant did not file submissions, while the respondent supported deferral.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

The respondent failed to file a Response by the required deadline.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent of the consequences of failing to participate under Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, and granted the respondent an additional 14 days to file a Response along with an explanation for the delay.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to policing services on the basis of disability and sexual orientation.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing despite having received notice.

The Tribunal waited thirty minutes before proceeding.

The application was dismissed on the basis that the applicant was deemed to have abandoned it.

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

A preliminary hearing was directed to determine whether the application falls within provincial or federal jurisdiction.

The Attorney General of Ontario filed a Request to Intervene under subsection 109(4) of the Courts of Justice Act, arguing that the constitutional applicability of the Human Rights Code is a constitutional question.

The Tribunal granted the request to intervene and reminded the parties of their disclosure obligations ahead of the preliminary hearing.