HRTO 2014

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

The respondent filed for bankruptcy, resulting in a Notice of Stay of Proceedings.

The Tribunal ordered the application to continue to be held in abeyance until the stay is lifted or no longer in effect.

The applicant requested a deferral of his human rights application pending the conclusion of a recently commenced civil action for wrongful dismissal.

The respondent objected.

The Tribunal denied the deferral request, noting that the hearing was scheduled to commence in four days and much of the preparation had been completed, whereas the civil claim had just been commenced.

The Tribunal found it would be unfair to the respondent to defer the application at this late stage.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application for delay.

The applicant alleged that the respondent enforced child support orders against him in a discriminatory manner based on sex.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was attempting to re-argue matters already presented or to appeal the decision, and that the continuing effects of the respondent's actions did not extend the limitation period.

The Request for Reconsideration was dismissed as there were no compelling and extraordinary circumstances to outweigh the public interest in the finality of decisions.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, which was deferred on consent pending the conclusion of another proceeding.

The Tribunal subsequently directed the applicant to provide an update on the status of the other proceeding, warning that failure to respond could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's direction or to the respondent's subsequent request for dismissal.

As a result, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application because the underlying facts were also the subject of an ongoing grievance arbitration.

The respondent supported deferral, while the applicant opposed it.

The Tribunal found that the issues raised in the grievance overlapped significantly with those in the application.

Applying its general approach to concurrent proceedings, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance process.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal regarding a determination by the Director of the Ontario Disability Support Program.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the conclusion of a related civil claim filed by the applicant in Small Claims Court.

The Tribunal found that deferral was appropriate due to the significant overlap in the factual background and the potential for duplication of evidence and inconsistent findings.

The application was deferred pending the conclusion of the civil proceeding.

The respondent in a human rights application alleging disability discrimination in employment requested an order for the production of the applicant's file from a third-party benefits adjudicator.

The applicant consented to the disclosure.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding the documents arguably relevant.

The Tribunal also partially granted the respondent's request for an extension of time to file hearing materials, setting new deadlines for both parties.

The applicant, a Black male, alleged discrimination and reprisal by the respondent police services board and officers, claiming he was racially profiled during a homicide investigation.

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

The Tribunal found no evidence linking the police's actions, including obtaining a search warrant after the applicant ceased cooperating, to his race.

The reprisal claim was also dismissed as the applicant had not asserted any Code rights prior to the alleged reprisal.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination almost four years after his dismissal from employment.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to be outside the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant claimed he was ill, but the Tribunal noted he had pursued several other legal proceedings during the delay period.

Finding no good faith explanation for the delay, the Tribunal dismissed the application as out of time.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code against the Canada Passport Office.

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

The applicant failed to provide written submissions in response to the Notice by the deadline.

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

The applicant requested reactivation of her human rights application, which had been deferred pending a union grievance arbitration.

The arbitrator had upheld her termination and found no discrimination based on disability.

The respondents did not oppose reactivation but requested dismissal under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code and for lack of a reasonable prospect of success on the remaining grounds.

The Tribunal granted the request to reactivate and ordered a summary teleconference hearing to address whether the allegations should be dismissed, whether they have a reasonable prospect of success, and whether certain corporate and personal respondents should be removed or added.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by his former employer based on record of offences and association with a person identified by a Code ground, following a workplace altercation and his subsequent termination.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed.

The Tribunal found the application was untimely and had no reasonable prospect of success, as the applicant had no convictions constituting a record of offences and provided no information linking his termination to any protected ground under the Code.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability and family status against Adecco Employment Services Limited.

The applicant subsequently brought a Request for Order During Proceedings to add London Life Insurance Company as a respondent, arguing it exercised day-to-day control over his employment, and to amend the remedies sought.

The Tribunal applied the Smyth test and granted the request to add London Life, finding the applicant made allegations that could support a finding of a Code violation by London Life.

The unopposed request to amend the remedies was also granted.

The applicant filed Requests for an Order During Proceedings (RFOPs) seeking to amend his human rights application and to add and remove certain respondents.

The respondents consented to some changes but opposed the addition of legal submissions and certain personal respondents.

The Tribunal allowed the factual amendments but excluded the legal submissions, noting they are more appropriate for closing arguments.

Applying the Smyth and Persaud factors, the Tribunal denied the request to add the Condominium Board of Directors as it is not a legal entity, and declined to add individual board members as personal respondents because the Condominium Corporation acknowledged vicarious liability for their actions.

The applicant alleged discrimination and harassment based on disability regarding his accommodation and subsequent termination.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance of the application was already dealt with in a grievance arbitration.

The Tribunal found that the grievance arbitrator had considered the accommodation process, the work refusal, and the harassment allegations, ultimately concluding the termination was justified.

Applying the principles of finality, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The applicant in a human rights complaint alleging discrimination in housing based on disability requested to add two individuals as personal respondents.

The proposed respondents allegedly owned the building and directed their manager to give preference to employed persons, discriminating against the applicant who received disability benefits.

Applying the Smyth test, the Tribunal granted the request to add the personal respondents, finding that the allegations could support a finding of a Code violation and that a remedy against them might be appropriate.

The applicant alleged discrimination under the Human Rights Code when she was not hired for a full-time cook position.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because a grievance had been filed and referred to arbitration regarding the same matter.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance proceeding to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex and family status, as well as reprisal, related to her maternity leave, accommodation for pumping breast milk, and termination.

Prior to filing the application, she had filed an Employment Standards Act (ESA) claim raising the same issues.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer.

Despite the applicant's objections regarding financial hardship and partial lack of ESA jurisdiction, the Tribunal deferred the application to avoid concurrent proceedings and the risk of inconsistent factual findings.

The applicant alleged that the respondent breached the confidentiality provision of their Minutes of Settlement.

In advance of the hearing, the applicant requested that the Tribunal direct the Chief of Police to provide a statement regarding who he had informed about the settlement, and direct the chair of the respondent Board to give evidence at the hearing.

The Tribunal denied both requests, finding them to be speculative and unsupported by specific allegations or evidence.

The Tribunal also directed the parties to file detailed witness statements.

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

The applicant also commenced a civil action for wrongful dismissal seeking damages for the same alleged Human Rights Code violations.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the application under section 34(11) of the Code, which prohibits an application if a civil proceeding seeking a remedy for the same alleged infringement has been commenced and not withdrawn.

The applicant did not respond to the Notice.

The Tribunal dismissed the application.