HRTO 2013

The respondent requested that the Tribunal dismiss the human rights application on the basis that it was filed after the one-year statutory deadline.

The applicant filed her application electronically at 11:03 PM on the deadline date, but Tribunal rules deemed it received the next business day because it was filed after 5:00 PM.

The Tribunal found the six-hour delay was incurred in good faith and caused no substantial prejudice to the respondent.

Alternatively, the Tribunal exercised its discretion to waive the 5:00 PM rule, finding the application was filed within the statutory deadline.

The request to dismiss was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application against a corporate respondent and three individual respondents.

The corporate respondent went into bankruptcy, triggering a stay of proceedings.

The applicant sought to proceed against the individual respondents and requested an order requiring the Trustee in bankruptcy to provide their last known addresses from corporate records.

The Tribunal granted the request, ordering the Trustee to confirm whether the application was delivered to the individuals and to provide their last known addresses.

The respondents requested that the human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability and family status be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Code, arguing the matter was dealt with in WSIB and ESA proceedings.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the WSIB decision regarding a work-related injury and the ESA decision regarding termination pay did not deal with the subject matter of the human rights application, which included allegations of failure to accommodate.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on ancestry and place of origin.

He claimed he was discriminatorily denied a service worker position in 2005 and subsequently placed in an unfair wage structure in 2007.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to address timeliness and reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the 2005 refusal allegation for delay, finding the six-year delay was not incurred in good faith despite ongoing union negotiations.

The Tribunal also dismissed the unfair wage allegation, finding no reasonable prospect that the applicant could link his rate of pay to his ancestry or place of origin.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to employment and membership in a vocational association because of age.

At the first day of the hearing, prior to any evidence being heard, the applicant requested to withdraw his application.

The respondent consented to the request.

The Tribunal granted the applicant leave to withdraw the application.

The applicant requested that a hearing date be scheduled for preliminary issues in her human rights applications, despite a previous Tribunal direction holding the matters in abeyance pending a decision in related cases concerning the application of section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code to Police Services Act proceedings.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant provided insufficient reasons to depart from the Tribunal's approach of awaiting the outcome of the related cases, which involved the same preliminary issues and significant stakeholder participation.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race and disability during a return to work meeting.

The respondent employer filed a Request for Order During Proceedings (RFOP) to amend the style of cause to reflect its correct corporate name, which the Tribunal granted.

The applicant filed a separate RFOP seeking to strike portions of the employer's response, amend the requested remedy, and seal certain notes.

The Tribunal deferred the applicant's requests to the hearing adjudicator, finding that evidentiary and privilege issues are best determined during the hearing rather than in a factual vacuum.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend her human rights application to include remedies for special and general damages.

The applicant was self-represented when she filed the original application and sought the amendment to clarify her intent after retaining counsel.

The respondents did not file a response to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the amendment related only to the relief sought, did not involve additional allegations, and would not prejudice the respondents or significantly impact the course of the hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discriminatory termination of employment based on disability and family status.

Prior to filing the application, the applicant had filed an Employment Standards Act (ESA) claim with the Ministry of Labour regarding the same termination.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the conclusion of the ESA claim.

Despite the applicant's objections regarding delays and economic stress, the Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application, finding that the ESA claim addressed the same facts and allegations and that the orderly administration of justice favoured deferral to the concurrent proceeding.

The applicant, a university student with a disability, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination after she was assigned a failing grade (INC) when she could not complete a deferred exam.

The respondents brought a request to dismiss the application for delay, arguing the events occurred more than one year before filing.

The Tribunal found that the respondents' subsequent refusals to retroactively withdraw the applicant from the course were not a series of fresh incidents, but rather the continuing effects of the original discrete decision to assign the INC grade.

As the applicant did not establish that the delay was incurred in good faith, the application was dismissed as out of time.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter was dealt with in a WSIB proceeding, or alternatively deferred pending a WSIAT appeal.

The Tribunal found that the WSIB decision only addressed whether a work-related accident occurred, which did not overlap sufficiently with the Code issues.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss or defer, ordered the matter to proceed to mediation, and directed the applicant to provide an update on the WSIAT appeal.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal by his employer and union regarding workplace accommodations following a harassment complaint.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) questioning its jurisdiction.

After reviewing the applicant's supplementary submissions detailing the alleged failure to accommodate and the union's alleged refusal to assist, the Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the application fell outside its jurisdiction.

The Tribunal directed that the application continue to be processed.

The respondent requested permission to introduce further evidence after the evidentiary phase of the hearing had concluded, arguing that two issues regarding the duty to accommodate were raised as potential sources of liability that were not identified at the outset.

The adjudicator denied the request, finding that the respondent already had full opportunity to lead evidence on these issues during the hearing, including through its own witness and during the cross-examination of a medical expert.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

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

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent of the consequences of failing to participate and granted the respondent 14 days to file a Response along with an explanation for the delay, failing which the Tribunal may proceed without further notice.

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

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation session and subsequently failed to respond to a Tribunal direction inquiring about his intentions with respect to the application.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of race, age, and disability after not being hired by the respondent.

At a summary hearing, the applicant withdrew the disability claim and consented to removing the individual respondent.

The Tribunal dismissed the age discrimination claim, finding no reasonable prospect of success as the applicant failed to provide evidence linking his age to the hiring decision.

However, the Tribunal allowed the race discrimination claim to proceed, as the applicant was asked about his ability to speak Spanish during the interview, which required further evidentiary testing.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment based on place of origin, disability, family status, age, and reprisal against the employer and the union.

Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal found that the applicant provided no evidence linking the alleged denial of vacation or the union's handling of the grievance to a prohibited ground of discrimination.

The Tribunal also found no evidence of reprisal regarding delays in processing the claimant's pension, which were attributed to clerical errors.

The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding alleging employment discrimination requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because her recently retained counsel was unavailable.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the late retention of counsel did not constitute exceptional circumstances under the Tribunal's Practice Direction.

The Tribunal also provided directions regarding the scope of proposed witness evidence, noting potential hearsay and relevance issues to be addressed at the hearing.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application.

He argued the adjudicator erred by not inviting submissions when he attempted to expand the scope of his application during closing arguments to include adverse effect discrimination regarding housing requirements for migrant workers.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant was attempting to use reconsideration as an appeal and that expanding the scope of the hearing at the closing submissions stage would have been manifestly unfair to the respondents.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment, while also pursuing a civil action for wrongful dismissal.

The Tribunal reconsidered an earlier interim decision and determined that it was not plain and obvious that the application was outside its jurisdiction under s. 34(11) of the Code, as the civil claim did not explicitly seek human rights remedies.

However, the Tribunal ordered the application deferred pending the completion of the civil action to avoid concurrent proceedings and the risk of inconsistent findings of fact and law.