HRTO 2013

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability against his employer and two individuals.

The individual respondents filed Requests for Order During Proceedings to be removed as parties, relying on the Persaud criteria.

The applicant consented to the requests.

The Tribunal granted the requests and removed the individuals as respondents, amending the style of cause accordingly.

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

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

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

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

The applicant requested reconsideration of two Tribunal decisions: one dismissing his application for delay and another removing individual respondents.

The applicant argued the delay was justified by an internal investigation and alleged bias against the Vice-chair.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that waiting for an internal investigation does not extend the one-year time limit to file an application, and the applicant failed to provide evidence of bias or a breach of natural justice.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination based on race and colour.

The respondents requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing, citing witness illness, the corporate president's vacation, and a recent corporate merger.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, finding that the reasons provided did not constitute exceptional circumstances given the advance notice of the hearing dates.

Additionally, the Tribunal noted that both parties failed to comply with their disclosure obligations under Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, and ordered them to file the required materials within seven days or face sanctions.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that her union and its counsel discriminated against her on the basis of disability and engaged in reprisal by failing to adequately represent her in a grievance proceeding.

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

Finding that the applicant's complaints amounted to general dissatisfaction with the union's representation without any evidence linking the union's conduct to her disability or a reprisal, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The applicant, aged 64, alleged age discrimination after being unsuccessful in a job competition for a full-time Fire Chief position.

The successful candidate was approximately 20 years younger.

The Tribunal applied a one-step circumstantial evidence test, rejecting the traditional three-step test.

The Tribunal found that the respondent provided rational, credible, and non-discriminatory reasons for its hiring decision, specifically that the successful candidate demonstrated a better grasp of current issues, proposed better solutions, and exhibited a more compatible, team-oriented management style during the interview.

The application was dismissed.

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

The applicant's bargaining agent, the Halton Regional Police Association, filed a Request to Intervene.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting its established practice that a bargaining agent nearly always has an interest in an application brought by a member of its bargaining unit.

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 scheduled hearing.

Neither party complied with the initial directions or a subsequent Case Assessment Direction.

As the applicant failed to comply with the Tribunal's directions despite being warned of the consequences, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his application for no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant argued there was new evidence regarding interview questions and that he did not receive notice.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had received notice and attended the hearing, and that the proposed new evidence was not determinative as it did not link the alleged mistreatment to prohibited grounds.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, and age, as well as reprisal, by the respondent police service.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, suggesting the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

After reviewing the applicant's written submissions, the Tribunal applied the 'plain and obvious' test and found that, except for the ground of age which was struck, it was not plain and obvious that the application was outside its jurisdiction.

The Tribunal ordered the application to be served on the respondent.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the Canadian Judicial Council (CJC) alleging discrimination in the dismissal of her complaint against a family court judge.

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

After reviewing the applicant's written submissions, the Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that adjudicative immunity applied to the CJC's complaint process.

The Tribunal directed that the matter proceed to a summary hearing to determine if the application has a reasonable prospect of success.

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

The respondent failed to file a Response by the deadline set in the Notice of Application.

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 to the respondent.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging disability discrimination and failure to accommodate by his former employer and two individuals.

The applicant requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the conclusion of a concurrent grievance process raising the same facts and issues.

The respondents consented to the deferral on the condition that the individual respondents be removed from the application.

The Tribunal held that deferral is an adjudicative decision based on avoiding inconsistent decisions, not on conditional agreements between parties.

Finding significant overlap between the application and the ongoing grievance, the Tribunal deferred the application and deferred the issue of removing the individual respondents until the application is reactivated.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for four days later, stating it intended to reconsider the policy at issue following submissions by an intervenor.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting its practice direction that adjournments are only granted in extraordinary circumstances and not simply because parties wish to explore settlement or reconsider their positions.

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

The applicant worked as a supervisor of security guards at Pearson International Airport.

The Tribunal determined that the employment of airport security guards falls within federal jurisdiction, as it is essential to aeronautics.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, noting that any claim must be made to the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

The applicant filed a human rights application but failed to attend the scheduled summary hearing.

The respondent attended the hearing.

The Tribunal noted its duty to dispose of applications fairly, justly, and expeditiously, and observed that the respondent had expended significant resources responding to the application.

Given the applicant's failure to attend and make submissions, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

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

The parties failed to comply with the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure regarding the pre-hearing disclosure of documents and witnesses.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the parties to comply with the Rules and confirm their attendance at the scheduled hearing, warning that failure to respond could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

After the deadline passed without any response from either party, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned, dismissed it, and cancelled the scheduled hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The applicant's union, CUPE, filed a Request to Intervene after the application against it was dismissed.

The respondent filed a response expressing concern that the union intended to represent the applicant, which the union clarified was not its intent.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene, noting that a union typically has an interest in an application brought by a member of its bargaining unit.

The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her application at a summary hearing for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant argued that the Tribunal should reconsider its decision under Rule 26.5, citing disagreement with the original decision regarding the loss of her nursing licence.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was merely attempting to re-argue her case and failed to establish any new facts or compelling circumstances to warrant reconsideration.

The request was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment on the basis of disability following the termination of his employment.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed because the applicant had signed a full and final release in exchange for an enhanced severance package.

The applicant argued he lacked the mental capacity to understand the release due to depression and anxiety.

The Tribunal found that the medical evidence provided fell short of establishing that the applicant was incapable of understanding the significance of the release.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.