HRTO 2013

The applicant, a former university student, alleged discrimination with respect to services because of disability after she was withdrawn from her academic program.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application, arguing there was no reasonable prospect of success because the applicant failed to meet academic requirements before disclosing her disability.

The Tribunal found that the application should proceed to a full hearing, as the applicant alleged her relationship with the respondent was not finally severed until after she disclosed her disability.

In an age discrimination application regarding a hiring decision, the Tribunal held a conference call to determine whether the successful candidate (the incumbent) was entitled to notice of the proceeding.

The Tribunal found that the incumbent was not significantly or directly affected because the applicant was not seeking a remedy that would displace the incumbent from his job.

Furthermore, section 8 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act did not require notice to a non-party.

The Tribunal ruled that there was no obligation to give the incumbent notice.

The applicant requested to reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of other related proceedings.

The respondents consented to the reactivation, provided they were given reasonable time to file a response.

The Tribunal granted the request, reactivated the application, and directed the respondents to file their response within 35 days.

The applicant brought a motion to remove the respondents' counsel due to an alleged conflict of interest.

The conflict arose when a lawyer who had previously worked on the applicant's file at her counsel's firm moved to the firm representing the respondents.

Applying the test from MacDonald Estate, the Tribunal found that while the lawyer likely received confidential information, the respondents' new firm had implemented adequate and timely screening measures to prevent disclosure.

The motion to remove counsel was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application under s. 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, directing the applicant to respond by a specified date.

The applicant failed to respond to the NOID.

As a result, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed an application under 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 10 days, warning that failure to do so could result in the Tribunal proceeding without further notice and deeming the respondent to have accepted the allegations, pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant student group filed a human rights application alleging that the respondent university discriminated against three of its members on the basis of ancestry, ethnic origin, and place of origin.

The dispute arose after the university removed and refused to approve the posting of a controversial political poster promoting 'Israeli Apartheid Week', and subsequently sent a campus-wide email regarding human rights and civil discourse.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the university's actions were motivated by genuine, good faith concerns about student safety and escalating campus tensions following an unprecedented number of hate-related incidents, rather than any discriminatory animus against Palestinians or their supporters.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and age, primarily arguing that a bed bug infestation in his condominium unit constituted a disability.

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

The Tribunal held that being a potential transporter of bed bugs does not fall within the definition of disability under section 10 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal dismissed the majority of the application, including claims related to meal and housekeeping services, but allowed one allegation regarding interference with medical treatment to proceed pending the submission of a witness statement.

The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination based on citizenship, colour, and race.

The respondents submitted that the corporate respondent, which provides airport ground handling and cargo services, is a federally regulated enterprise and therefore outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the services provided are an integral part of a federally-regulated undertaking.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision to determine whether two human rights applications alleging employment discrimination and reprisal based on disability and family status should be consolidated.

Applying the factors from Lattey, the Tribunal found significant overlap in the factual allegations, common issues of fact and law, and a compelling public interest in avoiding a multiplicity of proceedings.

The applications were ordered consolidated and referred to mediation.

The applicant requested an adjournment of his scheduled human rights hearing, citing a planned trip with his disabled mother.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant failed to establish exceptional circumstances as required by the Tribunal's Practice Direction on Scheduling.

The applicant had known of the hearing dates for several months and provided insufficient details about the necessity and timing of the trip.

The respondent in a human rights application requested an order for particulars and an extension of time to file its Response, arguing the application lacked sufficient detail to establish a nexus to the alleged grounds of discrimination.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the application contained adequate detail regarding the alleged intimidation, differential treatment, and termination for the respondent to discern the allegations and file a Response.

The Tribunal reiterated its general rule that respondents must file a completed response prior to raising preliminary issues like requests for particulars, absent exceptional circumstances.

The applicant requested to reactivate a human rights application that had been deferred pending the resolution of a grievance.

The applicant provided Minutes of Settlement indicating the grievance was withdrawn, and the respondent did not file a response.

The Tribunal ordered the application reactivated.

The applicant's request to add a new personal respondent was dismissed as premature, without prejudice to raising it later.

The applicant alleged discrimination with respect to housing on the basis of race and colour.

She claimed the respondents discriminatorily required her to remove a balcony enclosure, ignored racist graffiti near the condominium, and failed to address the theft of her laundry.

The Tribunal found no link between the applicant's race or colour and the respondents' actions regarding the balcony enclosure or the stolen laundry.

Regarding the graffiti, the Tribunal found that the respondents took immediate and reasonable steps to cover it up, even though it was located on neighbouring property.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed two human rights applications alleging age discrimination and reprisal.

The respondent requested that the applications be consolidated and the scheduled mediation be delayed.

The Tribunal ordered the consolidation of the applications as they involved the same parties and connected issues, but declined to delay the mediation, finding no compelling reason to do so.

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

The applicant's union requested intervenor status, which the applicant opposed on the basis of inadequate representation.

The Tribunal granted the union intervenor status, noting its obvious interest in the proceedings and the collective agreement.

The Tribunal also denied the applicant's request for an order directing the return of medical information previously provided to the respondent and the union, as the disclosure obligations for the current proceeding had not yet arisen.

The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination based on disability.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the application pending a Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) proceeding.

Finding no active WSIB proceeding, the Tribunal declined to defer the matter and ordered the hearing to proceed as scheduled.

The applicant, acting through the Public Guardian and Trustee, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and age.

The applicant sought retroactive benefits from the respondent Board to the date of her original 2001 application, which had been closed due to non-attendance at a medical appointment.

The respondent argued the application should be dismissed based on judicial immunity, as it challenged a statutory decision.

The Tribunal held it was not plain and obvious that the administrative requirement to file a second application was an adjudicative decision protected by judicial immunity, and allowed the application to proceed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment with respect to housing on the basis of ethnic origin and receipt of public assistance.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred pending the outcome of a Superior Court of Justice proceeding initiated by the co-operative to terminate the applicant's membership and occupancy rights.

The Tribunal granted the request to defer, finding that the court proceeding would consider many of the same facts and issues, and deferral would prevent concurrent proceedings on the same subject matter.

The applicant, an international medical graduate, sought reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application alleging discrimination in the family medicine residency matching process.

The Tribunal denied reconsideration of the direct discrimination and age discrimination claims, finding no breach of procedural fairness or determinative new evidence.

However, the Tribunal granted reconsideration in part, allowing the application to proceed solely with respect to the applicant's proposed amendments alleging systemic discrimination, as the original decision had failed to address those specific allegations.