HRTO 2014

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his application on the basis that he had commenced a civil proceeding concerning the same factual allegations.

The request for reconsideration was filed 11 months after the decision, well beyond the 30-day limit set by the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant provided no explanation for the delay and failed to set out any basis for review of the original decision.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to re-activate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the resolution of two union grievances.

She argued that one grievance was abandoned and the other was limited in scope and delayed.

The respondent conceded that the continuing grievance would not address all allegations but argued for partial deferral.

The Tribunal denied the request to re-activate, finding it impractical to partially defer the application while the arbitration was underway, and ordered the application to remain deferred pending the completion of the arbitration.

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

After failing to comply with disclosure obligations and subsequent Tribunal directions, the applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing.

The Tribunal held down the start of the hearing for 45 minutes, but the applicant did not appear or communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on race and ethnic origin by her manager.

The corporate respondent requested to be added as a party and to have the manager removed as a personal respondent.

The union requested intervenor status, and the respondents requested deferral of the application pending an ongoing union grievance.

The Tribunal added the corporate respondent and the union, but declined to remove the personal respondent, finding his conduct central to the allegations.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process, noting the overlap of facts and issues.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that the Family Responsibility Office (FRO) discriminated against him on the basis of sex in its enforcement of child support orders.

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

The Tribunal found that the events complained of occurred in 2009 and 2010, well outside the one-year time limit under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant failed to provide a good faith explanation for the delay in filing the application.

Consequently, the application was dismissed for delay.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the respondent hospital based on ethnic origin and creed.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to be filed more than one year after the last alleged incident.

The applicant argued that she only discovered the discrimination later and that her disabilities prevented her from filing earlier.

The Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the application was out of time or lacked a good faith explanation for the delay, and ordered the application to proceed.

The respondents requested that the human rights application be dismissed as an abuse of process, arguing the parties had reached a binding settlement agreement.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had not accepted an essential term regarding the tax treatment of the severance payment, meaning no binding agreement existed.

The respondents' request was denied.

A separate request by the applicant for document production was resolved after the respondents confirmed they had produced all arguably relevant documents.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of disability.

At the hearing, the applicant's representative advised that the applicant wished to withdraw her application, and the respondent agreed.

The Tribunal accepted the request and ordered the application withdrawn.

The applicant in a human rights application alleging employment discrimination based on disability and sex (pregnancy) filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings.

She sought to amend her Reply and requested the production of several documents, including a staff handbook, her employee file, and schedules.

The Tribunal denied the request to amend the Reply because the applicant failed to specify the proposed amendments.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to produce the staff handbook, finding it arguably relevant, but denied the remaining document requests as the applicant failed to establish their arguable relevance.

The applicant requested an order to defer her human rights application pending the conclusion of her appeal regarding Long Term Disability (LTD) benefits, with the respondent's consent.

The Tribunal denied the request, holding that the LTD appeal was not a concurrent proceeding dealing with the same issues that could lead to inconsistent decisions.

The Tribunal further noted that it does not defer proceedings merely to facilitate settlement negotiations.

The respondents in a human rights application requested the production of documents relating to the applicant's child or spousal support obligations in the 12 months prior to his termination.

The applicant alleged that his termination caused financial pressure, and the respondents argued that his pre-existing debt was relevant to assessing the financial impact of the termination.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the documents met the low threshold of arguable relevance.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

On the second day of the hearing on the merits, the applicant's representative requested to withdraw the application on the applicant's instructions.

The respondents consented to the withdrawal on the condition that the application also be dismissed.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting that allowing a withdrawal without a dismissal would be unfair given the significant resources already expended by the respondents and the Tribunal.

The application was withdrawn and dismissed.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding alleging sex discrimination and sexual solicitation requested an interim order prohibiting the respondent from contacting her directly by telephone, citing harassing phone calls.

The respondent did not reply to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, ordering the respondent not to contact the applicant directly by telephone, noting that the respondent is represented by counsel and any necessary communication can be conducted in writing.

The complainant alleged discrimination because of disability regarding the special diet allowance under Ontario's social assistance system.

The Tribunal directed the complainant to provide materials and submissions in support of her remaining claim relating to chronic constipation, warning that failure to do so would result in the claim being dismissed as abandoned.

The complainant failed to file any materials or communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the remaining claim was dismissed as abandoned.

The complainant alleged discrimination based on disability regarding the special diet allowance under Ontario's social assistance system.

After failing to provide required materials, the Tribunal dismissed the claims related to food allergies, hearing loss, and osteoarthritis as abandoned.

The Tribunal issued directions and a deadline for the complainant to file materials if she wished to pursue her remaining claim regarding cardiovascular disease.

The complainant alleged discrimination based on disability regarding the special diet allowance under Ontario's social assistance system.

The Tribunal dismissed the claims relating to chronic constipation and heartburn as abandoned because the complainant failed to file required materials.

The Tribunal directed the respondent to provide reasons for denying special diet benefits for hepatitis C, and set a deadline for the complainant to file materials regarding the claim for cardiovascular disease, failing which it would also be dismissed.

The complainant alleged discrimination because of disability contrary to the Human Rights Code regarding the special diet allowance provided under Ontario's social assistance system.

The Tribunal previously directed the complainant to provide material and submissions in support of her remaining claim relating to schizophrenia, warning that failure to do so would result in the claim being dismissed as abandoned.

The complainant failed to file any materials or communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the remaining claim as abandoned.

The complainant alleged discrimination because of disability regarding the special diet allowance provided under Ontario's social assistance system.

The Tribunal directed the complainant to provide material and submissions in support of her remaining claim relating to chronic constipation, warning that failure to do so would result in the claim being dismissed as abandoned.

The complainant failed to file any materials or communicate with the Tribunal.

The remaining claim was dismissed as abandoned.

The complainant alleged discrimination based on disability regarding the special diet allowance provided under Ontario's social assistance system.

The Tribunal previously directed the complainant to provide materials and submissions in support of her remaining claims relating to anxiety, food allergies, and asthma, warning that failure to do so would result in dismissal.

The complainant failed to file any materials or communicate with the Tribunal.

As a result, the Tribunal dismissed the remaining claims as abandoned.

The complainant alleged discrimination based on disability regarding the special diet allowance under Ontario's social assistance system.

The Tribunal previously directed the complainant to provide materials and submissions in support of her remaining claims, warning that failure to do so would result in dismissal.

The complainant failed to file any materials or communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the remaining claims as abandoned.