HRTO 2014

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceeding to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the completion of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Act proceeding.

The respondent did not object to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request and reactivated the application, directing the Registrar to schedule a two-day hearing.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding filed two Requests for Order During Proceeding.

The first request sought to have the mediator assigned as the hearing adjudicator, to change the hearing venue from Ottawa to Toronto, and to have the Ontario Human Rights Commission monitor the case.

The second request sought to amend the Application to add new grounds.

The Tribunal denied all requests, noting that mediators do not conduct hearings without consent, the alleged discrimination occurred in Ottawa, the Tribunal cannot direct the OHRC to monitor cases, and the amendment request was out of time and inappropriately delayed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on sex and sexual orientation.

The applicant subsequently filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to add a representative, add a personal respondent, amend the application, file a late reply, and require document production.

At a preliminary hearing, the applicant withdrew the requests regarding the late reply and document production.

The respondents consented to the remaining requests.

The Tribunal granted the requests to add the representative, add the personal respondent, and amend the application on consent.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous decision that deemed her human rights application abandoned after she failed to respond to a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the threshold criteria for reconsideration, as she failed to provide new facts or evidence that could be determinative of the case or explain her failure to respond to the initial notice.

The request for reconsideration was denied and the application remained dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous decision that dismissed her human rights application as abandoned after she failed to respond to a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant did not provide any new facts or evidence that could be determinative of the case, nor did she explain her failure to respond to the initial notice.

A hearing was scheduled for the applicant's human rights application.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing after receiving proper notice.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned due to the applicant's non-attendance.

The applicant, a hospital employee with physical restrictions due to workplace injuries, alleged that the hospital failed to accommodate his disability when it refused to consider him for a full-time cleaner position.

He also alleged that his union discriminated against him by discouraging him from seeking accommodated positions.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the hospital met its procedural duty to accommodate by repeatedly requesting updated medical information, which the applicant failed to provide.

Without this information, the hospital could not safely accommodate him in a physically demanding role.

The Tribunal also found the applicant's allegations against the union to be not credible.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application for lack of jurisdiction.

She argued that she did not receive notice of the proceeding.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant had in fact received notice and responded to it by providing additional evidence prior to the original decision.

The applicant failed to establish any criteria under Rule 26 that would justify reconsideration.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application on the basis of delay and having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant argued that the decision conflicted with established case law and that other factors outweighed the public interest in finality.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was attempting to re-argue his case and had not provided new, determinative evidence.

The request for reconsideration was denied as the applicant failed to meet the threshold criteria under Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of disability.

The only remaining allegation was that the applicant was mocked due to an eye disability during a Grievance Settlement Board hearing.

The respondent argued the application should be dismissed for delay, as the alleged incident occurred more than one year before the application was filed.

The Tribunal found that the incident occurred outside the one-year limitation period and the applicant provided no explanation for the delay.

The application was dismissed as the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability (PTSD) and a failure to accommodate.

The respondent employer brought a request for an order during proceedings seeking access to the applicant's Occupational Health and Claims Management file to prepare its response, citing potential conflicts between privacy legislation and occupational health duties.

The Tribunal found the medical records arguably relevant but narrowed the scope of production to records specifically concerning PTSD between September 2012 and June 2013.

The respondent was also granted a 35-day extension to file its response.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code regarding a workplace dispute.

The respondents requested deferral of the application pending the conclusion of grievances filed by or on behalf of the applicant under a collective agreement.

Finding that the grievances involved the same facts and issues, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance arbitration process, noting that grievance arbitrators have the power and responsibility to enforce human rights obligations.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care, alleging discrimination with respect to the provision of medical services because of disability.

The Tribunal directed a summary hearing to determine if the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the Ministry of Health does not regulate health care providers and is not responsible for complaints about independent doctors or hospitals.

As there was no reasonable prospect of success against the named respondent, the application was dismissed.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of family status, claiming his contract was not renewed because of an issue involving his brother in the workplace.

The applicant argued his brother stood in a parent-child relationship to him.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success because the respondents had no knowledge of a parent-child type relationship between the siblings, and sibling status alone is not a protected ground under the Code.

The applicant alleged that her employment was terminated because she was pregnant and had a miscarriage, contrary to the Human Rights Code.

The respondent maintained that the termination was due to performance issues and that the decision was made before management learned of the pregnancy.

The Tribunal found the respondent's evidence, supported by internal emails, credible and concluded that the decision to terminate was made prior to the applicant disclosing her pregnancy.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant's litigation guardian filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking an explanation for the respondent's possession of allegedly private documents, early disclosure of documents, and an extension of time to file a Reply.

The Tribunal dismissed the requests, finding it lacks jurisdiction to enforce privacy legislation or the Education Act, and that the request for early document production was premature under the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The intervenor, Loblaw Companies Limited, brought a request to intervene in an application alleging employment discrimination against its employee.

The request was unopposed by the parties.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the intervenor had a significant interest in the proceeding because the allegations arose during the course of the respondent's employment and the requested remedies could impact the intervenor.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to be outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction due to delay.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice within the required time.

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

The applicant alleged discrimination based on disability after being terminated for stealing narcotic medication, which she attributed to her addictions.

During the hearing, the adjudicator raised the issue of whether documents prepared for the College of Nurses of Ontario's fitness to practice investigation were admissible under section 36(3) of the Regulated Health Professions Act.

The Tribunal ruled that documents prepared for the College's Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee and Fitness to Practise Committee proceedings were subject to an absolute statutory bar and therefore inadmissible.

The parties were directed to provide further submissions on the impact of this evidentiary ruling.

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

The respondent daycare business failed to attend the scheduled hearing after its two prior adjournment requests, which cited staffing shortages, were denied.

The applicant and her witnesses were present and ready to proceed.

The Tribunal adjourned the hearing and ordered that two new hearing dates be set, which will be peremptory to the respondent.