HRTO 2014

The applicant filed a Contravention of Settlement Application alleging the respondent breached a settlement agreement by delaying the payment of settlement funds and failing to provide a letter of reference.

The Tribunal found that the delay in payment, caused by an incorrect address, did not constitute a breach.

However, the Tribunal held that the failure to provide the letter of reference until after the application was filed breached an implied term to deliver it within a reasonable time.

Despite finding a breach, the Tribunal declined to award the requested $10,000 in compensation, noting the breach was inadvertent, the applicant had not previously followed up on the letter, and no specific impact was demonstrated.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing two days prior, citing work commitments.

The respondent did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, noting that under its Practice Direction, requests made outside the initial 14-day period require extraordinary circumstances.

Work commitments do not constitute an exceptional circumstance justifying a late adjournment.

The applicant filed a human rights application but failed to attend a scheduled mediation, failed to disclose arguably relevant documents, and failed to file pre-hearing materials.

After the applicant ignored a Case Assessment Direction warning that the application could be dismissed for non-compliance, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned and cancelled the scheduled hearing dates.

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 the Tribunal's directions to clarify his intentions regarding the application.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application against Health Canada and others for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant alleged various breaches of privacy, surveillance, and harassment, including hacking of his electronics and random heating of his microwave.

The Tribunal denied the request for reconsideration, finding that the applicant failed to establish any of the criteria under Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, as the allegations were not connected to any protected ground under the Human Rights Code.

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

The Tribunal previously deferred the application pending the conclusion of ongoing grievance proceedings.

The Tribunal subsequently directed the applicant to provide an update on the grievance process, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant failed to respond within the specified time.

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

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation session and did not communicate with the Tribunal to explain her absence.

After the Tribunal directed the applicant to advise of her intentions and warned that failure to respond might result in abandonment, the applicant did not respond.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant brought an Application for Contravention of Settlement, alleging the respondent breached a Memorandum of Settlement resolving a human rights application.

The settlement included a broad release of all claims arising from employment.

However, the respondent failed to withdraw a pending application before the Ontario Labour Relations Board, which subsequently awarded him termination pay and damages for reprisal.

The Tribunal found the settlement language clear and unambiguous, concluding the respondent breached the agreement by not withdrawing the OLRB application.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the applicant the amount awarded by the OLRB, plus $1,000 in monetary compensation for the breach.

The applicant, who alleged sexual harassment while on temporary assignments, requested an order requiring the respondent temporary help agency to provide contact information for several individuals she wished to summons as witnesses.

She also sought to amend her Application to add new factual allegations.

The Tribunal granted the request for witness information in part, ordering the respondent to provide the last known contact information for individuals who were its employees, to allow the self-represented applicant to participate effectively.

The Tribunal denied the request to amend the Application, finding that the late addition of new allegations would prejudice the respondent.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the human rights application because of an ongoing proceeding before the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB).

The applicant opposed the deferral, arguing the LTB was not addressing human rights issues.

Several respondents supported the deferral.

The Tribunal found that a significant portion of the allegations related to the applicant's interactions with the landlord and its agents, and deferred the application pending the conclusion of the LTB proceedings.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex and sexual orientation.

The applicant failed to provide updated contact information, failed to disclose documents, and failed to respond to Tribunal directions.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability after the Ministry of Transportation suspended his driver's licence due to a medical report indicating he posed a safety risk.

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

The Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction to consider the application because section 47(2) of the Human Rights Code and section 19 of the Drivers' Licences Regulation under the Highway Traffic Act explicitly shield the Ministry's medical fitness decisions from Code scrutiny.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code against the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) twice, directing the applicant to provide written submissions regarding the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to either notice.

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

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the application on the basis that it appeared to be outside the Tribunal's 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 human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on record of offences and reprisal, claiming she was assaulted by a co-worker and separated from them after complaining.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application did not identify any specific acts of discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found it plain and obvious that the application fell outside its jurisdiction, as the applicant pleaded no facts relating to a record of offences or a reprisal for asserting Code rights.

The application was dismissed.

In an ongoing human rights hearing, the Tribunal addressed several interim issues raised by the parties.

The Tribunal ruled that the applicant was not required to provide further particulars or link his evidence to specific Code breaches prior to final argument, as his direct evidence was already complete.

The Tribunal deferred ruling on the admissibility of the respondents' revised will says regarding a use of force training incident until after hearing from specific witnesses.

Finally, the Tribunal noted the respondents' position that they did not dispute the applicant's medical expert's qualifications or the correctness of his information, but maintained the information was insufficient to return the applicant's use of force.

The applicant, who provides personal care for her son with a developmental disability, alleged that the respondent discriminated against them based on family status and association by not paying her for providing care.

At a summary hearing, the Tribunal found that the respondent only provides funding to corporations for personal care, not to individuals, regardless of family status.

The applications were dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant, a municipal councillor and director of the respondent holding corporation, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of family status after the board moved its meeting start times to 3:30 p.m., which conflicted with her childcare obligations.

The Tribunal dismissed the discrimination claim, finding that as a corporate director, the applicant was not in an employment relationship under the Code.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of family status discrimination because she did not demonstrate reasonable efforts to find alternative childcare solutions or that the start time actually excluded her from participating.

The Tribunal deferred its decision on the applicant's reprisal claim, requesting further submissions from the parties.

The applicant filed a human rights application.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction, and directed the applicant to respond.

The applicant failed to respond by the deadline.

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

The applicant, an atheist, refused a modified work assignment monitoring a Salvation Army kettle, alleging it conflicted with her religious beliefs.

A WSIB Appeals Resolution Officer determined the work was suitable and denied her loss of earnings benefits, finding the refusal was for personal reasons not requiring accommodation under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant then sought to reactivate her human rights application.

The Tribunal dismissed the application under section 45.1 of the Code, finding that the WSIB proceeding had concurrent jurisdiction, dealt with essentially the same issue, and appropriately dealt with the substance of the application without unfairness.