HRTO 2014

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination based on sex and family status after the respondent denied her request to work from home to accommodate childcare responsibilities.

The applicant brought a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking production of internal communications regarding her accommodation request, remote work by other staff, workplace policies, and the hiring of her replacement.

The respondent did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal found the requested documents arguably relevant and ordered the respondent to produce them.

The applicant filed an Application for Contravention of Settlement but failed to deliver it to the respondents as required by the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

Despite multiple communications from the Tribunal requesting proof of service or an alternative address, the applicant's representative failed to provide the necessary information or respond to the final warning.

The Tribunal concluded it would be manifestly unfair to proceed with an application that the respondents had not received, and consequently closed the file.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application as abandoned after he failed to file a reply by the extended deadline.

He argued that his physical and mental disabilities prevented him from responding in a timely manner.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding no medical evidence supported his claim and noting that his timely and articulate communications with the Tribunal contradicted his assertion of inability to meet deadlines.

The Tribunal concluded there were no factors outweighing the public interest in the finality of decisions.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race and colour, as well as reprisal.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, questioning whether the allegations fell within its jurisdiction.

The applicant submitted that he was dismissed for breaching a non-competition clause while white employees who did the same were not, and that his dismissal was in retaliation for a harassment complaint.

The Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the application fell outside its jurisdiction and directed that the application continue to be processed.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, claiming that her manager and co-workers spoke Farsi exclusively, ignored her, and favoured Persian employees.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant might be able to establish a link between the alleged events and Code grounds, and therefore declined to dismiss the application at this preliminary stage.

The applicant filed a substantially incomplete application with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, essentially submitting a blank form as a placeholder while pursuing other litigation.

He requested a six-month extension to complete the application, citing a disability-related accommodation need.

The Tribunal found the medical documentation insufficient to support the lengthy extension and concluded that the neutral requirement to file a complete application in a timely manner did not have an adverse impact on the applicant based on disability.

The application was closed as incomplete.

The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination.

The hearing was adjourned after the applicant claimed he was unable to attend due to medical conditions.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide a current doctor's note answering specific questions about his ability to participate.

Despite multiple warnings that his application could be dismissed, the applicant failed to provide the required medical documentation and ceased communicating with the Tribunal.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for failure to comply with its directions.

The respondents requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing after the Ontario Human Rights Commission was granted intervenor status on short notice to make submissions on the legal test for family status discrimination.

The applicant and the Commission consented to the adjournment.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the respondents failed to establish exceptional circumstances, as the Commission's submissions would be heard in final argument and could be provided in writing with ample time for the respondents to reply.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, questioning whether the narrative identified specific acts of discrimination connected to a Code ground.

After receiving the applicant's submissions detailing allegations of unequal pay and differential treatment compared to non-black employees, the Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the application fell outside its jurisdiction.

The Tribunal ordered the application to proceed.

The applicant, a former student, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on race after the college suspended him and contacted police regarding a fellow student's complaint.

The application was filed more than one year after the last alleged discriminatory act by the respondents.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the delay was incurred in good faith.

Finding that the applicant's explanations—ignorance of the law, being busy with school and criminal court, and mild depression—did not establish a good faith reason for the delay, the Tribunal dismissed the application as out of time.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to housing.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision addressing two preliminary matters.

First, on consent of the parties, Dave Boucher was removed as a respondent.

Second, the respondents argued the application was filed outside the one-year time limit under section 34(1)(a) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the application was filed by email within the one-year time limit, and the later date recorded by the Tribunal was an administrative error.

The Tribunal ordered the application to proceed.

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

The respondent failed to file a Response despite receiving a Notice of Application and a further direction from the Tribunal warning of the consequences of failing to respond.

The Tribunal ordered that the respondent is deemed to have accepted all allegations in the Application and waived all rights to notice or participation in the proceedings.

A case management conference call was scheduled to determine next steps.

The applicants alleged that the Halton Children's Aid Society discriminated against them on the basis of age and family status, and engaged in reprisal, by interviewing the minor applicants without parental consent during a child protection investigation.

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

The minor applicants did not meet the Code's definition of 'age' (18 years or more) for the provision of services, and there was no evidence linking the respondents' actions to family status or demonstrating a reprisal for claiming Code rights.

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

Before the respondent filed its response, the applicant requested an order to amend his application to include recent allegations of reprisal and a claim for monetary compensation.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend and directed the respondent to file its response within 35 days.

The applicant sought to amend his human rights application to include allegations of systemic discrimination and events predating February 2011.

The respondents argued these amendments were prejudicial and that allegations predating October 2011 were untimely.

The Tribunal denied the request to add systemic discrimination and earlier events due to prejudice.

It also dismissed allegations predating June 30, 2011 as having no reasonable prospect of success, since the respondents were unaware of the applicant's disability before then.

The Tribunal found that the July 2011 return to work meeting was not part of a series of incidents and was therefore untimely, with no good faith explanation for the delay.

However, allegations regarding repeated requests for medical documentation were allowed to proceed as a potential series of incidents.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking the full name and address of a member of the respondent golf club in order to add him as an individual respondent.

The respondent did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to provide the requested contact information so the applicant could properly serve the proposed respondent with a request to add him as a party.

The applicant filed a request to reactivate her human rights application over five months after the conclusion of a related grievance arbitration.

The Tribunal's Rules require such requests to be filed within 60 days.

The applicant failed to provide any explanation for the delay despite being directed to do so.

The Tribunal found no good faith explanation for the delay, denied the request to reactivate, and dismissed the application.

The applicant failed to comply with the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure and a subsequent Case Assessment Direction requiring the exchange and filing of documents, witness lists, and witness statements.

Having received no communication or materials from the applicant by the specified deadline, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned and cancelled the scheduled hearing.

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

The applicant claimed he misunderstood the Notice of Hearing and believed he could call in at any time during the scheduled three-hour window.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding the applicant's explanation lacked credibility and did not constitute compelling and extraordinary circumstances to justify reconsideration under Rule 26.5(b).

The applicant alleged that she was subjected to age-based harassment by a frontline supervisor at the respondent's fast food restaurant, and that the respondent reprised against her after she complained to corporate head office.

The Tribunal found that the supervisor was not a directing mind of the respondent, and therefore the respondent was not liable for his alleged harassment under section 46.3(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal also found that the respondent acted reasonably in response to the applicant's concerns and that no reprisal occurred, as the applicant's complaint to head office was about hours of work, not an attempt to enforce a right under the Code.

The application was dismissed.