HRTO 2014

The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application after he failed to attend the scheduled hearing.

He argued that he did not receive notice of the hearing because the Tribunal had an incorrect email address and that he was misinformed about the hearing date.

The Tribunal found that it had used the email address provided by the applicant, that he had previously communicated from that address, and that he had been sent multiple notices of the hearing date.

The request for reconsideration was denied as the applicant failed to establish that he did not receive notice through no fault of his own.

The respondent requested a reconsideration of an interim decision.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that under Rule 26.1 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, only final decisions that dispose of central issues in the application can be reconsidered.

As the interim decision did not dispose of central issues, it could not be the subject of a reconsideration request.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking the production of various documents from the respondent in a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and age.

The Tribunal found that the requested documents, including property manager reports, bookkeeping records, cancelled cheques, Board meeting minutes, and financial statements, were arguably relevant to the issues in dispute.

The respondent was ordered to produce the requested documents.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing due to the unanticipated illness of its counsel.

The applicant's counsel did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that the illness constituted an exceptional circumstance justifying the request, and directed the Registrar to reschedule the hearing for four consecutive days.

The applicants, two young siblings, were employed at the respondent's restaurant.

They took a summer leave of absence to visit their father, who lived in another city.

Upon returning, they were told they would not be given work hours and had to re-apply the following spring.

They filed human rights applications alleging discrimination in employment based on family status.

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

Given the developing state of the law regarding family status and the unique factual matrix, the Tribunal declined to dismiss the applications and directed them to proceed to a full hearing.

The applicant, who is blind, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of race, colour, disability, and sex by the respondent restaurant.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing on its own initiative to determine whether the application should be dismissed for delay or for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the short delay in filing the application was incurred in good faith due to a technical mishap and that no substantial prejudice would result.

The Tribunal also concluded that the application had a reasonable prospect of success, as the applicant might be able to establish a link between the alleged events and the protected grounds.

The application was permitted to proceed.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision that dismissed her human rights application as abandoned after she failed to attend the hearing.

The applicant filed the request more than two months late, citing the illness of an immediate family member.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting the lack of medical documentation, the applicant's failure to communicate her inability to attend the hearing, and her prior communications which did not mention the family member's illness.

The Tribunal found no factors outweighing the public interest in the finality of its decisions.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of family status after the respondent denied his requests for time off to assist his mother with medical appointments.

The applicant's union had previously filed grievances regarding the same issues, which were resolved through a settlement that provided the applicant with a cash payment and expanded family leave provisions.

Although the applicant refused to sign the Minutes of Settlement, he accepted the financial payment and the new leave provisions.

The Tribunal found that the applicant implicitly accepted the settlement and that the grievance proceeding appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The application was dismissed under section 45.1 of the Code as an abuse of 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 based on age and sex.

The respondent failed to file a Response despite receiving the Notice of Application and a subsequent direction warning of the consequences of non-compliance.

Applying Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, the adjudicator deemed the respondent to have accepted all allegations in the application and waived all rights to further notice or participation.

A case management conference was scheduled to determine the next steps for the applicant to establish her entitlement to remedies.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment, including an improper reduction of her bonus.

The applicant also filed a complaint under the Employment Standards Act (ESA) regarding the same bonus reduction.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the completion of the ESA complaint.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that proceeding concurrently would require the parties to address substantially the same issues in two different forums, raising the potential for inconsistent findings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging workplace harassment more than one year after the last alleged incident.

The applicant argued the delay was justified because she had first pursued a civil action in Small Claims Court, which was dismissed without prejudice to her right to file with the Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that pursuing other legal remedies before turning to the Tribunal does not amount to a good faith explanation for delay.

The application was dismissed for delay.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to amend his human rights application to correct a statutory reference.

The applicant sought to replace references to sections 5(1) and 5(2) of the Human Rights Code, which pertain to employment, with section 1, which pertains to services.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting that the amendment was minor, the application was in its early stages, and there was no prejudice to the respondents.

The respondent in a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking access to the applicant's Occupational Health and Claims Management file.

The respondent argued the file was necessary to file a meaningful response.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had placed his medical conditions at issue, making the requested documents arguably relevant.

The Tribunal granted the respondent access to the file from August 2011 to the present and extended the time for filing a response.

The respondents in a human rights application alleging discrimination in a police promotion process requested an order striking out certain historical allegations and removing the Chief of Police as an individual respondent.

The Tribunal declined to strike the historical allegations, finding they were offered as contextual evidence rather than standalone claims, but ordered the applicant to provide further particulars.

The Tribunal granted the request to remove the Chief of Police, finding no compelling reason to continue the application against her personally as the organizational respondent was vicariously liable and capable of responding to any remedial order.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination regarding services for a real estate licensing course.

The respondent sought dismissal on the basis that the applicant had already commenced a Small Claims Court action based on the same facts and seeking similar remedies.

The Tribunal found that section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code barred the application because the civil proceeding raised the same allegations and sought similar remedies.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on creed.

Prior to the hearing, the applicant was incarcerated.

To facilitate the hearing, the Tribunal arranged to hold the hearing at the detention centre.

The respondent objected to the change in venue and the applicant's late filing of documents, and requested a three to four month adjournment.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, finding the security protocols and venue change were not significantly onerous, and ruled that issues regarding late disclosure could be addressed at the hearing.

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

A summary hearing was scheduled to determine if the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled telephone conference hearing.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging she was terminated from her employment because of her pregnancy.

In its response, the respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application because the applicant had also filed a concurrent complaint under the Employment Standards Act, 2000 regarding the same issue.

The Tribunal found that the ESA complaint would likely address the same facts and allegations as the human rights application.

To avoid concurrent proceedings and the possibility of inconsistent decisions, the Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application pending the conclusion of the Ministry of Labour proceeding.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to prevent the respondent from calling or submitting evidence, alleging the respondent filed a false Statement of Delivery and delivered its arguably relevant documents two days late.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the Statement of Delivery was not false and that the minor two-day delay in delivery caused no prejudice to the applicant.