HRTO 2013

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

The respondent sought to dismiss the application as untimely and as an abuse of process due to a signed release.

The Tribunal found the application was timely, accepting evidence that the original application was lost in the mail and the delay was incurred in good faith without substantial prejudice to the respondent.

The Tribunal ordered a separate preliminary hearing to determine the abuse of process issue regarding the release, and directed the applicant to file a formal request if he wished to add further respondents.

The applicant sought to amend his human rights application to include allegations of ongoing harassment, discrimination, and reprisal that occurred after the initial filing, culminating in the termination of his employment.

The respondent opposed the amendment, arguing prejudice and that the applicant had previously withdrawn a request to expedite based on these events.

The Tribunal allowed the amendment, finding that the applicant, who was unrepresented at the time, had consistently attempted to raise these issues and that the respondent would not be prejudiced as the events were recently the subject of an arbitration.

The applicant filed an Application for Contravention of Settlement alleging the respondent breached a settlement agreement.

The respondent argued there was no formal settlement of a Tribunal application and that it had complied with a grievance settlement.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to confirm his intention to proceed and provide a copy of the written settlement.

The applicant failed to respond or provide the required documentation.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal against her employer, her union, and several individual respondents.

The respondents requested the removal of the named personal respondents.

The applicant consented to the removal of the employer's personal respondents but opposed the removal of the union representatives, though she provided no written submissions.

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal found no compelling reason to keep the union representatives as personal respondents, as the core allegations concerned their failure to properly address her workplace issues on behalf of the union.

The Tribunal ordered all personal respondents removed from the proceeding.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and age against her former employer, a nursing home, and two individual respondents who were owners/administrators.

After the corporate employer went into receivership, the applicant withdrew the application against the corporation and sought to proceed against the individuals.

The individual respondents argued the proceeding should be stayed against them as they acted as agents of the corporation.

The Tribunal applied the Persaud factors and found specific allegations against both individuals regarding the refusal to accommodate and an age-related comment.

The Tribunal ordered that the application continue against both individual respondents.

The applicant in a housing discrimination case requested an order permitting her doctor to testify by teleconference.

The respondent did not object to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting that the doctor's evidence was not extensive, credibility was not a significant issue, and there was no conflicting evidence, subject to the applicant providing the doctor's clinical notes to the respondent.

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

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed, arguing that they are federally regulated and the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction.

The applicant requested that the matter be deferred pending resolution of a parallel proceeding under the Canadian Human Rights Act.

The Tribunal found that the jurisdictional issue was uncertain and that it would be most fair, just, and expeditious to defer the application rather than put the parties to further expense and delay.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking the addresses and telephone numbers of three prospective witnesses employed by the corporate respondent.

The Tribunal previously directed the respondents to provide this information, but the respondents instead offered to serve the subpoenas themselves.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to provide the contact information to the applicant, noting that a party has the right to attempt to discuss potential testimony with prospective witnesses.

The respondents requested that the human rights application be deferred pending the completion of a concurrent grievance and arbitration process dealing with the same issues.

The applicant's union did not oppose the deferral, but the applicant objected because a mediation had failed and he disliked the settlement position advanced.

The Tribunal granted the request to defer, noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority to decide human rights issues and that the orderly administration of justice favours deferral to the concurrent proceeding.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application alleging discrimination by the respondent.

The applicant argued there were new facts, the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence, and other factors outweighed the finality of the decision.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to meet the threshold criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26, as the new evidence could not be determinative, there was no conflict with jurisprudence, and no other factors justified reopening the case.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The respondents filed a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking to defer the human rights application alleging age discrimination pending the resolution of a concurrent complaint filed with the Public Service Grievance Board.

The applicant did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal found that the issues raised in the grievance were essentially the same as those in the application.

Noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority to enforce human rights obligations, the Tribunal deferred the application to avoid concurrent proceedings and ensure the orderly administration of justice.

The respondents requested a change of venue for the hearing from Thunder Bay to Fort Frances, citing difficulties in securing witnesses willing to travel.

The applicant opposed the request and sought an order regarding the respondents' failure to comply with pre-hearing disclosure obligations.

The Tribunal denied the change of venue, finding the request untimely and lacking sufficient Code-related reasons.

The Tribunal also directed the respondents to immediately file their required witness statements and materials, warning of potential evidentiary sanctions for non-compliance.

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

In a previous interim decision, the Tribunal incorrectly added another individual as a personal respondent.

The Tribunal issued this interim decision to amend the style of cause and correct the error.

The applicant alleged discrimination when she was not awarded a non-bargaining unit position, which was instead given to a bargaining unit member.

The applicant's union, the United Steelworkers, filed a request to intervene.

The applicant opposed the request, citing confidentiality concerns and arguing the union had no authority over the non-bargaining unit position.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene, finding that the union could be affected if the applicant was placed in the position, as it would displace the current bargaining unit member.

The Tribunal also directed the parties to make submissions on whether the successful candidate should be given notice of the application.

The applicant failed to comply with the Tribunal's Rules 16 and 17 regarding the delivery of witness lists, witness statements, and documents.

After a Case Assessment Direction was issued warning that the application may be dismissed as abandoned if the applicant did not comply within seven days, the applicant failed to respond or file the required materials.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

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

The parties agreed to resolve the application and entered into a written settlement.

The applicant filed a request to withdraw the application, and the parties jointly requested the Tribunal to finally dispose of the matter.

The Tribunal granted the request and dismissed the application.

The applicant failed to comply with the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure and a Case Assessment Direction requiring the exchange of documents and witness lists.

As the deadline passed without compliance, the Tribunal concluded the applicant had abandoned her application and dismissed it.

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

The applicant alleged systemic discrimination in the respondent's staffing practices, specifically placing women in table server and bartender positions.

The Tribunal denied the reconsideration request, finding that the applicant failed to establish that his own rights under the Human Rights Code had been infringed, as he never applied for or expressed interest in the positions in question.

The Tribunal reiterated that an individual cannot bring a public interest application without proving personal disadvantage.

The applicant, a student at the respondent college, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of age and ethnic origin, as well as reprisal.

The allegations arose after the applicant was disciplined for posting anti-Muslim comments on a course discussion board and for disruptive behaviour during a group assignment.

Following a hearing, the Tribunal assessed whether the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence lacked credibility and that the allegations were an attempt to enforce a perceived right to make anti-Muslim comments.

The Tribunal concluded there was no reasonable prospect of success on any ground and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race and disability, claiming the respondent failed to accommodate his workplace injury and terminated his employment.

The applicant's union had previously grieved the termination, and an arbitrator upheld the termination, explicitly dismissing the claims of discrimination.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the arbitration award appropriately dealt with the substance of the application and dismissed it to prevent duplicative litigation.