HRTO 2014

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing, arguing that he was unable to properly prepare because his previous counsel had not provided his file to his new counsel, and he needed more time to gather evidence.

The respondent opposed the request.

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

The Tribunal found that the reasons cited did not constitute an exceptional circumstance.

The respondent requested reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision issued after a hearing in which the respondent did not participate.

The respondent claimed it did not receive notice of the proceeding or hearing due to an outdated corporate address, although it had sent a response to the Tribunal which was never received.

The Tribunal accepted that the respondent did not have notice of the proceedings and granted the request for reconsideration, quashing the previous decision and remitting the matter to the normal process.

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

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

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

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

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment against the respondent trucking company.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed on the grounds that it is a federally-regulated enterprise engaged in interprovincial transportation.

The Tribunal found it plain and obvious that the respondent's labour relations fall under federal jurisdiction pursuant to s. 92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant sought to re-activate his transitional human rights application following a decision by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT).

The request was filed 35 days after the 60-day deadline set out in the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The Tribunal found that the applicant provided a reasonable explanation for the delay, having attempted to contact his former representative within the deadline.

Given the short length of the delay and the lack of prejudice to the respondents, the Tribunal granted the request to re-activate the application and ordered a hearing to determine whether the matter had been appropriately dealt with by the WSIAT.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability when his employment was terminated.

The respondents sought to dismiss the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application had been appropriately dealt with by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT).

The WSIAT had previously found that the applicant was capable of returning to work without modifications and that his ongoing loss of earnings was due to his refusal to accept work, not his injury.

The Tribunal agreed that the WSIAT proceeding appropriately dealt with the substance of the human rights application and dismissed the application.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction seeking the parties' positions on whether three human rights applications involving the same narrative and respondents should be consolidated.

None of the parties replied.

The Tribunal found it appropriate to consolidate the applications as they raised the same facts and legal issues, and ordered them to be heard together.

The applicant, a former social work student, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination after being removed from his program.

He brought several preliminary requests seeking document production, particulars, Tribunal-ordered inquiries, the addition of individual respondents, and amendments to his application.

The Tribunal dismissed the requests for production, particulars, and inquiries as premature because a hearing had not yet been scheduled.

The Tribunal also refused to add the proposed individual respondents, finding no allegations of Code violations against them and no compelling reason to add them given the university's vicarious liability.

The request to amend the application was granted in part, but allegations relating to freedom of information proceedings and a request for witness costs were excluded.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of race, colour, and age during a job interview process, claiming she was treated rudely and made to wait for several hours.

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

The applicant admitted she had no evidence to link the respondent's conduct to a prohibited ground under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it had no reasonable prospect of success as there was no evidence of discrimination.

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

The Tribunal and the respondent's counsel attempted to contact the applicant to reschedule the hearing date, but the applicant failed to respond to multiple emails and letters.

The Tribunal warned the applicant that failure to respond could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

As the applicant did not respond to any correspondence, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to goods, services, and facilities because of disability, claiming the process of receiving long-term disability benefits was prolonged.

The respondents sought early dismissal under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

A summary hearing was scheduled by telephone conference.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing or communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend his human rights application against a correctional facility.

The respondent objected, arguing the amendments were unnecessary or insufficiently particularized.

The Tribunal allowed the amendments regarding dietary issues to the extent they clarified the allegations.

The Tribunal also allowed the amendment regarding alleged racial taunts, subject to the inclusion of specific particulars provided by the applicant in earlier submissions to clarify the scope of the allegation.

The applicant alleged discrimination with respect to housing based on race, colour, ancestry, and place of origin after being told an apartment he applied for was no longer available.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant provided no evidence to support his belief that he was denied the apartment for discriminatory motives or that the respondent had an unofficial policy of denying single black males.

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

The applicant requested to re-activate her human rights application, which had previously been deferred pending the conclusion of a grievance process.

The respondents opposed the request, noting that the grievances had proceeded to Step 3 and were anticipated to be referred to arbitration.

The Tribunal found it inappropriate to re-activate the application while the grievance process was ongoing and ordered that the application remain deferred.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination based on family status, association, and reprisal against a women's shelter and the Ministry.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction and lacked specific allegations of discrimination or reprisal.

The applicant failed to respond to the NOID or provide written submissions as directed.

As a result, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

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

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

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

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

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code, which was deferred pending the conclusion of a related matter before the Landlord and Tenant Board.

After the LTB decision was issued, the applicant failed to file a request to reactivate the application within the required 60-day period.

Despite multiple communications and a Case Assessment Direction from the Tribunal warning of potential dismissal, the applicant failed to respond or indicate her intentions.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination regarding his teaching timetable, denial of a leadership position, and being declared surplus.

The respondents requested deferral of the application pending the outcome of related grievances filed under the collective agreement.

The Tribunal found that the issues in the application and the grievances overlapped almost completely, raising the possibility of inconsistent decisions.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance proceedings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race, ancestry, place of origin, and ethnic origin because the respondent, Pride Toronto, granted a marching permit to Queers Against Israeli Apartheid (QuAIA).

The respondent requested summary dismissal.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's allegations were rooted in political opinions, which are not protected grounds under the Human Rights Code, and that the applicant failed to establish any differential treatment or disadvantage based on a protected ground.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to services by the police.

Prior to the hearing, the applicant died.

The applicant's counsel subsequently withdrew, and the applicant's mother failed to attend a scheduled case management conference call to address whether the estate intended to proceed with the application.

As a result, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.