HRTO 2014

The applicant, a college student, alleged that the respondent, the college's Code of Conduct Administrator, reprised against her for filing a human rights application by investigating her conduct and suspending her.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant had asserted her Code rights and faced an adverse action, there was no intention to reprise.

The investigations into the applicant's numerous complaints against professors were adequate and revealed that her behaviour was disruptive and harassing.

The Tribunal concluded that the suspension was imposed for non-discriminatory reasons related to violations of the Student Code of Conduct, not as retaliation for her human rights complaints.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of 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 applicant failed to respond to a subsequent Tribunal direction warning that her application might be deemed abandoned, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant, a Muslim woman, alleged that she was subjected to sexual harassment, sexual solicitation, and racial discrimination by her store manager.

She also alleged that the respondent failed to properly investigate her internal complaint and terminated her employment as a reprisal for raising these concerns.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant's evidence regarding the harassment was not credible, particularly because she failed to disclose the most significant allegations during the internal investigation.

The Tribunal also found that the respondent adequately investigated the complaint and that the termination was based on performance issues, not as a reprisal for enforcing her rights under the Human Rights Code.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of their preliminary request to dismiss the application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, pending the outcome of a judicial review in a separate but related matter (De Lottinville).

The applicant opposed the deferral, arguing it would cause unfair delay.

The Tribunal denied the deferral request, finding that the parties are entitled to timely resolution of complaints and that waiting for a speculative outcome in a judicial review involving different parties was not appropriate.

The applicant alleged workplace discrimination and reprisal.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance was appropriately dealt with in prior grievance proceedings before the Grievance Settlement Board (GSB).

The applicant argued the settlement of her first grievance was obtained under duress and the mediation-arbitration of her second grievance was unfair.

The Tribunal found no evidence of economic duress and concluded that the GSB proceedings appropriately dealt with the discrimination allegations, which were therefore dismissed.

However, the reprisal allegations postdated the GSB proceedings and were permitted to proceed.

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

The applicant asserted that the respondent failed to comply with Rule 16 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, which requires the delivery of all arguably relevant documents.

The Tribunal granted the request and ordered the respondent to immediately deliver the required materials within 7 days, warning that failure to do so could result in the respondent being barred from relying on documents or calling witnesses at the hearing.

The applicant alleged that his employment was terminated as a reprisal for refusing to alter a health and safety investigation report, contrary to the Human Rights Code.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed because the applicant had signed a severance agreement and a full and final release.

The applicant argued the release was signed under economic and psychological duress and without legal advice.

The Tribunal found that the applicant understood the release, received sufficient consideration, and that the pressures he faced did not amount to coercion of his will.

The application was dismissed 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 was directed to provide written submissions but failed to do so by the deadline.

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

The respondent requested that the human rights application be dismissed for delay, arguing it was filed beyond the one-year time limit under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant received notice of termination on November 2 or 5, 2012, effective November 9, 2012, and filed the application on November 6, 2013.

The Tribunal held that the final act of discrimination in a dismissal is the effective date of termination, not the date notice is received.

Therefore, the application was filed within the one-year time limit and the respondent's request was denied.

The applicant, previously declared a vexatious litigant, sought leave to proceed with nine applications alleging discrimination and reprisal against various respondents, including the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario and the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to satisfy the onus of explaining why the applications were a legitimate effort to vindicate his rights under the Human Rights Code, rather than an attempt to vex or harass the respondents.

Leave to proceed was denied and the applications were dismissed.

The applicant filed a request to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the resolution of an Employment Standards Act proceeding.

The ESA proceeding concluded in July 2013, but the applicant did not request reactivation until May 2014, well beyond the 60-day limit under the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide a good faith explanation for the delay, noting that ignorance of the impact of the ESA settlement did not justify the failure to act.

The request to reactivate was denied and the application was dismissed.

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

The respondents failed to file a Response by the required deadline and ignored a subsequent Tribunal direction to file a Response.

Pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal deemed the respondents to have waived their right to notice and participation, and deemed them to have accepted all allegations set out in the Application.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her application alleging discrimination with respect to services on the basis of disability by a hospital and its Mobile Crisis Intervention Team.

The applicant argued the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence and breached procedural fairness.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding the applicant was attempting to re-argue her case and failed to establish any of the threshold criteria for reconsideration under the Tribunal's Rules.

The respondent requested that part of the human rights application be dismissed as untimely, specifically an incident from November 2011.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, noting that the timeliness of the allegations had already been addressed in a previous interim decision (2014 HRTO 781), which found a sufficient thematic connection between the incidents to consider them timely.

The matter was directed to mediation.

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 provide written submissions in response to the NOID by the required deadline.

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 (NOID) on the basis that the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction, directing the applicant to respond by a specified date.

The applicant failed to respond to the NOID.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board regarding her benefits and a recent denial of a lump sum payment.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

The Tribunal found that the allegations regarding benefits and retraining were substantially the same as a previous complaint filed with the Human Rights Commission, and were therefore barred by section 53(8) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal also found that the applicant failed to identify how the denial of a lump sum payment was discriminatory.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceeding to amend her remedial requests to seek reinstatement to employment in the event the respondent is found to have violated the Human Rights Code.

The respondent opposed the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting that amendments to remedy are generally allowed as there is typically no prejudice to the other party, and the Tribunal ultimately determines the appropriate remedy.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sexual harassment, sexual assault, and reprisal in the workplace.

The respondents filed Requests for Order During Proceeding seeking early dismissal of the application on various grounds, including no reasonable prospect of success and abuse of process due to the applicant's use of inappropriate language and personal attacks.

The Tribunal denied the requests to dismiss for no reasonable prospect of success without reasons, and denied the abuse of process request as premature, while strongly cautioning the self-represented applicant to comply with the Tribunal's rules regarding courteous and respectful conduct.

Other requests were deferred pending mediation.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing and an extension of time to file a Reply due to staffing issues at a legal clinic.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario denied the adjournment request, finding that the circumstances were not exceptional as required by the Practice Direction.

However, the Tribunal granted the extension of time to file a Reply, finding no prejudice to the respondent and sufficient reasons to ensure orderly adjudication.