HRTO 2014

The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because the applicant's complete WSIB file had not been disclosed.

The intervenor supported the request, while the applicant opposed it.

The Tribunal noted its practice direction that adjournments are only granted in exceptional circumstances.

Finding that the respondent had ample opportunity to obtain the file since January 2014 and that no exceptional circumstances existed, the Tribunal denied the adjournment request.

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

The Tribunal previously deferred the application pending another legal proceeding.

After mail sent to the applicant was returned, the Tribunal directed the applicant to provide updated contact information and confirm his intent to proceed, warning that failure to do so could result in the application being determined without further notice.

The applicant failed to respond or contact the Tribunal.

Consequently, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer and later requested contact information for the respondent, as mail sent to the respondent was returned.

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's directions to provide a current address for the respondent.

Consequently, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

The applicant, a Correctional Officer, alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, race, and colour regarding the employer's interpretation of her medical restrictions and subsequent reassignment to visitor reception.

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

The Tribunal found that the employer accommodated the applicant's restrictions and that her claims of differential treatment based on race and colour were purely speculative.

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

The respondent requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision finding he committed sexual harassment, asserting he was in bankruptcy and could not afford the damages award.

The Tribunal directed the respondent to provide documentation from his trustee in bankruptcy to support his claim that the proceedings should be stayed under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The respondent failed to comply with the Tribunal's directions to provide the necessary documents.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration.

The applicant filed a human rights application but failed to respond to a Case Assessment Direction requiring him to provide information and confirm his contact details.

As the applicant had not contacted the Tribunal since September 2013, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application as abandoned after he failed to attend the scheduled hearing.

The applicant alleged unfair treatment regarding a rescheduled mediation and claimed to have new evidence.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's assertions about the mediation did not demonstrate unfair treatment or excuse his failure to attend the mandatory hearing.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to identify the alleged new evidence or explain why it could not have been obtained earlier.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, sex (sexual harassment), and reprisal, approximately nine months after the expiry of the one-year limitation period.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss and requested submissions on the delay.

The applicant argued the delay was due to hospitalization and subsequent medical treatment.

The Tribunal found that while the medical evidence explained a portion of the delay, it did not explain the remaining period before the application was filed.

The Tribunal concluded the delay was not incurred in good faith and dismissed the application as untimely.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of related grievances.

The Tribunal found that the request was premature because at least one of the grievances, which significantly overlapped with the application, was still being heard by an arbitrator.

The request to reactivate the application was dismissed.

The respondent requested that the human rights application alleging housing discrimination based on disability be deferred pending an ongoing Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) proceeding.

The LTB proceeding involved the respondent's application to evict the applicant for failing to remove a freezer, which the applicant claimed she needed due to her disability.

The Tribunal granted the deferral, finding that the factual underpinnings of both proceedings were the same and that proceeding with the human rights application could lead to inconsistent findings of fact.

The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his application as abandoned due to his failure to comply with pre-hearing obligations.

The request was filed beyond the 30-day time limit prescribed by the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide a good faith explanation for the delay and failed to provide any substantive basis for reconsideration.

The Request for Reconsideration was denied.

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

The Tribunal received a settlement form signed only by the respondent and repeatedly contacted the applicant to confirm the settlement or her intention to proceed.

The applicant failed to respond to multiple communications from the Tribunal.

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

The applicant filed a human rights complaint against a fraternity and a university.

The university requested a deferral pending its internal investigation, which the Tribunal denied because an internal investigation is not a proceeding under s. 45.1 of the Code.

The fraternity's request for a summary hearing was also denied.

The applicant's unopposed request to amend the application to vary remedies and add a local fraternity chapter as a respondent was granted.

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

The Tribunal attempted to contact the applicant multiple times by mail, but the correspondence was returned as 'return to sender'.

The respondent Ministry advised that the applicant was no longer in custody at the address provided.

After the applicant failed to respond to a direction to update his contact information, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application but failed to respond to a Notice of Intent to Defer and a subsequent Case Assessment Direction regarding whether the application should be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

Due to the applicant's failure to respond, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled summary hearing due to unspecified medical reasons.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario denied the request, noting that adjournments are only granted in exceptional circumstances and the applicant provided insufficient detail to assess the request.

The Tribunal advised the applicant that she could reapply with clear written information from her doctor explaining her condition and when she would be able to participate.

The respondent in a human rights application alleging disability discrimination requested an order for the applicant to produce clinical records relating to her disability diagnosis.

The applicant opposed the request and also sought to exclude one of the respondent's witnesses from testifying due to an alleged conflict of interest.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to produce the clinical records, finding them arguably relevant to the issue of whether she has a disability.

The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's request to exclude the witness, finding no conflict of interest that would justify such an order.

The applicant, who is blind, alleged discrimination by a physiotherapist and a patient advocate during and after her hospital stay.

She brought a motion to add the physiotherapist and the patient advocate as personal respondents and to amend her application to include additional allegations.

The Tribunal denied the request to add the patient advocate, as the hospital would be vicariously liable and no personal remedy was necessary.

However, because the physiotherapist was no longer employed by the hospital and a training remedy was sought, the Tribunal directed that the physiotherapist be given notice to make submissions on being added.

The request to amend the application was granted.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his application alleging discrimination in the respondent's paratransit service booking features.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in finding he had not established a prima facie case and in its assessment of the evidence regarding undue hardship and witness statements.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was attempting to re-argue his case and had not established any of the threshold criteria under Rule 26.5 to justify reconsideration.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceeding to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending a grievance arbitration.

The grievance was subsequently withdrawn.

The Tribunal found it appropriate to reactivate the application and directed the respondent to file a Response within 35 days.