HRTO 2014

The applicant failed to comply with the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure regarding the exchange of documents and witness lists.

Despite a Case Assessment Direction warning that the application could be dismissed if she did not comply by a specified deadline, the applicant failed to file the required materials or communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

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

The applicant's union had also filed two grievances on her behalf alleging violations of the Human Rights Code based on the same facts and issues.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal defer the application pending the outcome of the grievance procedure.

The Tribunal found that there was a substantial overlap of facts and issues between the proceedings and that deferral was appropriate to avoid the risk of inconsistent findings.

The application was deferred pending the resolution of the grievance procedure.

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

A summary hearing was scheduled to determine if the application had no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled telephone conference hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, deeming it abandoned due to the applicant's non-attendance.

The applicant alleged discrimination and sexual harassment in employment.

She sought an interim order for the production of documents from her union, including notes taken by her union representative and her disability benefits file.

The respondent took no position.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding the documents arguably relevant to determining what the applicant disclosed about the harassment and when.

The Tribunal also directed the parties to provide more detailed witness statements prior to the hearing.

The applicant alleged age discrimination regarding the denial of disability benefits under a collective agreement after turning 60.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that a prior conciliation of a grievance dealt with the substance of the application, or alternatively deferred under s. 45 pending collective bargaining.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss because the conciliation did not result in a determination of the substance of the application, as the grievance was withdrawn.

The Tribunal also denied the request to defer, finding no parallel proceeding underway.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that the respondent is federally-regulated and therefore outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

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

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

The applicant, a teacher, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and failure to accommodate her disability by the respondent school board.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because the applicant's union had filed three grievances on her behalf regarding the same issues, with arbitration already underway.

The Tribunal granted the request and deferred the application, finding a substantial overlap of facts and issues between the proceedings and noting that labour arbitrators have the power and duty to enforce the Human Rights Code.

The applicant, previously declared a vexatious litigant, sought leave to file 12 new applications with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

The Tribunal had previously ordered that any future applications must include submissions explaining why they are legitimate assertions of Code rights, not intended to vex respondents, and not an abuse of process.

The applicant submitted identical requests for all 12 proposed applications without referencing their specific facts.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet the burden imposed by the prior order, as the proposed applications lacked factual connection to the Code and resembled his previous abusive filings.

The requests for leave were denied.

The applicant alleged that the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board discriminated against him on the basis of age and disability (diabetes) when a case manager denied him benefits.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed on preliminary grounds.

The Tribunal found that the respondent is not protected by adjudicative immunity, that the application falls within its jurisdiction because it alleges discrimination under the Code, and that the application has a reasonable prospect of success.

The request to dismiss the application was denied and the matter was allowed to proceed.

The applicant filed a human rights application but failed to comply with the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure regarding the exchange and filing of documents and witness lists.

After missing the initial deadline, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction warning that the application could be dismissed if the required materials were not filed by a specified date.

The applicant failed to comply or communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned and cancelled the scheduled hearing dates.

The applicant alleged discrimination and reprisal by his employer and union regarding a job competition.

The union initially filed a grievance but later decided not to proceed, prompting the applicant to file duty of fair representation and unfair labour practice applications with the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Tribunal deferred the human rights application pending the resolution of the Board proceedings and any subsequent grievance arbitration, noting the substantial overlap of facts and issues.

The applicant requested to reactivate his human rights application following a favourable decision from the WSIB Appeals Resolution Officer.

The respondents opposed, noting they were appealing to the WSIAT, and requested the applicant be declared a vexatious litigant.

The applicant filed a cross-request for an interim remedy alleging abusive conduct by the respondents.

The Tribunal ordered the application to remain deferred pending the WSIAT appeal and dismissed both parties' requests for orders, finding no vexatious or abusive conduct by either side.

The respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking dismissal of the human rights application due to the applicant's failure to disclose arguably relevant documents.

The applicant failed to respond to the request and subsequently failed to respond to a Case Assessment Direction from the Tribunal.

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

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision dismissing his age discrimination application against a student transportation company.

He argued he did not receive a Case Assessment Direction and that the adjudicator made erroneous findings of fact regarding the hiring of other drivers.

The Tribunal found the applicant had notice of the proceeding and that the factual findings were supported by unrefuted evidence.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that his former employer reprised against him for requesting religious accommodation when it terminated his employment.

The respondent requested early dismissal on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release in exchange for an additional week's pay.

The applicant argued the release did not bar future claims or, alternatively, that he signed it under duress fearing negative impacts on his Record of Employment.

The Tribunal found the release clearly barred the application and that the applicant failed to establish duress, as the respondent applied no illegitimate pressure.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination in employment against CIBC, CIBC Mortgages Inc., and members of the Board of Directors of CIBC.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the Application against CIBC on the basis that it is a federally-regulated employer.

The applicant conceded that CIBC is a bank and therefore federally regulated under s. 91(15) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The Tribunal dismissed the Application against CIBC for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that her retirement residence failed to accommodate her gluten intolerance and harassed her when she complained.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) had already dealt with the substance of the application during an eviction proceeding for rent arrears.

The Tribunal found that the LTB had addressed the same facts and issues, concluding that the landlord had taken reasonable measures to accommodate the applicant and that there was no basis for the harassment allegations.

Accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the respondents.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the applicant had commenced a civil class action lawsuit seeking damages for the identical violations of the Human Rights Code.

Despite the applicant's assertion that it was withdrawing from the civil action, no evidence of withdrawal was provided.

The Tribunal dismissed the application under section 34(11) of the Code, which prohibits an application if a civil proceeding seeking an order under section 46.1 has been commenced and not finally determined or withdrawn.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment, claiming he was forced to retire due to the employer's failure to accommodate his disability during a facility closure.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine if the application should be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had previously filed grievances on the exact same issues, which were dismissed by the Grievance Settlement Board.

Concluding that the substance of the application had been appropriately dealt with in the prior proceeding, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to medical services because of creed.

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

The applicant failed to identify any specific conduct that could constitute discrimination under the Human Rights Code, relying instead on the International Bill of Human Rights, which the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to enforce.

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