HRTO 2014

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to membership in a vocational association.

A summary hearing was scheduled by teleconference.

The applicant requested a last-minute adjournment via email, citing bronchitis, but provided no medical documentation and failed to call into the hearing.

Given the applicant's history of delaying the proceeding and failure to participate, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by the respondent college.

Following a history of vexatious communications, the Tribunal scheduled a summary hearing to address the respondent's request to dismiss the application for abuse of process.

The applicant repeatedly sought adjournments on the basis of running a business, which the Tribunal denied.

At the peremptory summary hearing, the applicant renewed his adjournment request and, upon its denial, terminated his participation in the teleconference.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding requested an order requiring the respondent to provide a list of documents it intended to rely upon at the hearing, and an order permitting his family doctor to testify by teleconference.

The Tribunal granted both requests.

The Tribunal emphasized that Rule 16.2(a) requires parties to identify specific documents to be relied upon to ensure efficient case management.

The Tribunal also noted that medical professionals frequently testify by teleconference in disability discrimination cases, as credibility assessments of such witnesses are rarely required.

The applicant, who is visually impaired, alleged that the respondent discriminated against him on the basis of disability when it did not hire him for a Community Organiser position.

The applicant claimed that the respondent decided not to hire him after he asked for assistance to find the elevator following his interview.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and found that the applicant provided no evidence, beyond his own speculation, to link the respondent's decision not to hire him to his disability.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging workplace sexual harassment and assault, while concurrently pursuing a civil action and a WSIB/WSIAT claim based on the same allegations.

The applicant requested that the Tribunal defer its proceedings pending the resolution of the other matters.

The respondents opposed the deferral, arguing the multiplicity of proceedings was an abuse of process.

The Tribunal granted the deferral, finding significant overlap in the factual and legal issues and noting that the civil action was further advanced and the WSIAT's decision on the right to sue would inform the appropriate forum.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment.

The respondent filed a Response requesting dismissal on the basis that another proceeding had dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to file a Reply, warning that failure to do so could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant failed to file a Reply.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment.

The applicant also filed a parallel complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC).

The Tribunal deferred consideration of the application pending the CHRC's determination of its jurisdiction over the complaint, to avoid duplication of proceedings and the risk of inconsistent determinations.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Incomplete Application and subsequently a Failure to Respond to Notice of Incomplete Application Notice.

The applicant failed to respond to either notice by the specified deadlines.

Consequently, the Tribunal closed the file and returned the incomplete application to the applicant.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability against her former employer, the TTC.

She later requested to remove the TTC as a respondent and add her union, alleging the union discriminated against her by failing to adequately support her during the grievance process following her termination.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing and found that the union had represented the applicant at all available steps of the grievance process for a probationary employee.

The applicant could not point to any evidence suggesting her disability was a factor in the union's representation or its advice that she resign.

The Tribunal concluded the application had no reasonable prospect of success and dismissed it.

The applicant failed to comply with a Case Assessment Direction requiring him to deliver arguably relevant documents to the respondent and file a Statement of Delivery.

The applicant also failed to respond to the respondent's request for an order during proceedings.

As the applicant did not communicate with the Tribunal by the specified deadline, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to housing because of disability and receipt of public assistance.

The Tribunal scheduled a summary hearing and provided the applicant with proper notice, warning that failure to attend could result in dismissal.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing and provided no explanation for his absence.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the respondent police department.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application was filed more than a year after the last alleged incident.

The applicant failed to provide a good faith explanation for the delay under section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code, instead citing efforts to pursue his rights in other forums.

The Tribunal found this insufficient to justify a waiver of the limitation period and dismissed the application as out of time.

The applicant, an ODSP recipient living in a rooming house, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability after the respondent car rental company refused to rent him a vehicle.

The respondent required customers without credit cards to provide two utility bills as proof of local residence, which the applicant could not produce because his utilities were included in his rent.

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

The Tribunal held that the applicant's inability to produce utility bills or obtain a credit card stemmed from his economic circumstances, not his disability, and receipt of public assistance is not a protected ground for services under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant, a tenant in a social housing building, alleged that the respondent landlord and property manager discriminated against him on the basis of perceived mental disability.

The applicant claimed discrimination occurred when the property manager told the City Ombudsman that the applicant had possible mental health issues, and when the respondents failed to inform complaining fellow tenants that the applicant did not have a mental disability.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that merely perceiving someone to have a disability is not disadvantageous treatment and therefore not discrimination under the Code.

The Tribunal also found no evidence that fellow tenants complained about the applicant because they perceived him to have a mental disability.

The applicant requested to amend his human rights application to include a public interest remedy, specifically human rights training and a policy concerning racial profiling for the officers involved and the Direct Action Response Team (DART) unit.

The respondents opposed the amendment, arguing it was late and would unduly lengthen the hearing.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, finding that the amendment would not substantially lengthen the hearing as the allegations focused on events limited in time and place.

The Tribunal also noted that the issue of document production had been resolved.

The applicant filed a Request to reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the outcome of an appeal before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT).

The respondent acknowledged that the WSIAT proceedings had concluded but opposed the reactivation, arguing the applicant was attempting to amend the application.

The Tribunal granted the request to reactivate, noting that the sole issue on such a request is whether the other proceeding has concluded, and directed the applicant to file a separate request if he wished to amend his application.

The respondent in a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability requested an order for the production of the applicant's complete and unredacted medical records.

The applicant opposed, arguing the records were not relevant to understanding her functional limitations and raised privacy concerns.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding the medical documentation arguably relevant because the applicant had placed her medical condition at issue by seeking accommodation and claiming her condition worsened due to the respondent's conduct.

Disclosure was limited to respondent's counsel and their instructing client to address privacy concerns.

The applicant filed a request to reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of his grievances.

The arbitrator rendered a final decision on the grievances, and the respondent consented to the reactivation request.

The Tribunal found it appropriate to reactivate the application and directed that it continue to be processed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous decision that dismissed his human rights application for being filed outside the one-year limitation period.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet any of the threshold criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5, as he did not provide new evidence, show a conflict with established jurisprudence, or raise other factors outweighing the finality of decisions.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant alleged discrimination in housing based on marital status and receipt of public assistance after being denied a Community Start Up and Maintenance Benefit (CSUMB).

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine whether to reactivate the application following a Social Benefits Tribunal (SBT) appeal.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the SBT had appropriately dealt with the substance of the public assistance allegation under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, and that the marital status allegation had no reasonable prospect of success.