HRTO 2014

Thames Emergency Medical Services (TEMS) requested to be removed as a respondent to a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability.

The applicant originally named Middlesex-London Emergency Medical Services Authority (MLEMSA) as the sole respondent, alleging discrimination when she was not offered employment after MLEMSA took over services from TEMS.

MLEMSA added the union as a respondent, and the union subsequently added TEMS.

Applying the Smyth test, the Tribunal found that the applicant had not raised any allegations against TEMS that could support a finding of a Code violation.

The request was granted and TEMS was removed as a respondent.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to goods, services, and facilities because of disability.

Prior to the scheduled hearing, the applicant's litigation guardian informed the Tribunal that the family was moving out of the province and would not be pursuing the case.

The Tribunal treated the communication as a request to withdraw under Rule 10 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure and granted the request, cancelling the scheduled hearing dates.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled summary hearing in order to ask the Ontario Human Rights Commission to intervene, arguing that a recent Case Assessment Direction raised matters of public interest.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that a Case Assessment Direction is merely procedural and does not constitute a decision, meaning the issues in the applications had not changed since they were filed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment.

The union requested to intervene, which was granted as it had an interest in the proceeding.

The Tribunal then considered whether to defer the application pending the completion of an ongoing grievance and arbitration proceeding based on the same facts.

Despite the applicant's objections regarding delays and fair representation, the Tribunal deferred the application to avoid concurrent proceedings and contrary findings, noting the applicant could request reactivation if the grievance was not dealt with diligently.

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

After mediation failed, the applicant's counsel withdrew and requested that the Tribunal communicate with the applicant by mail.

The Tribunal sent multiple letters requesting an update on the applicant's search for new counsel, warning that the file could be closed as abandoned if she did not respond.

The applicant failed to respond to any correspondence.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) on the basis that the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the NOID by the specified deadline.

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

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the application on the basis that it appeared to be outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant was directed to respond but failed to do so.

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

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to amend his human rights application to include further allegations of reprisal regarding housing discrimination.

The respondent did not object to the amendment but requested that the amendments be underlined and that it be given time to file an amended response.

Applying the factors for amending pleadings, the Tribunal granted the request and set a schedule for the filing of the amended application, response, and reply.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to re-activate her human rights application after her Employment Standards Act complaint was denied.

The respondent opposed re-activation and requested the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the ESA proceeding dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal re-activated the application and scheduled a conference call hearing to hear submissions on the section 45.1 dismissal request.

The applicant filed a human rights application against his employer alleging discrimination in employment, raising concerns about provisions of the collective agreement and his union's representation.

The union filed a Request to Intervene to address its representation of the applicant.

The applicant opposed the request.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene, noting its standard practice to grant intervention status to a bargaining agent in human rights applications alleging discrimination in employment, absent exceptional circumstances.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on the basis of sex regarding the non-payment of a retention bonus while on pregnancy leave.

Both parties filed Requests for Order During Proceedings.

The Tribunal denied the applicant's request for the respondent's financial records and to add a personal respondent, finding the document request overly broad and no basis to add the individual.

The Tribunal granted the respondent's request for the applicant's payslip, finding it arguably relevant to whether she was an active employee when the bonus became due.

The applicant, who has mobility issues, filed a human rights application alleging the respondent condominium corporation failed to accommodate his disability by refusing to alter a fence to improve his access to a nearby park.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed at a summary hearing, arguing it was filed outside the one-year limitation period and had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found the application was timely as the events constituted a series of incidents under section 34 of the Code.

The Tribunal also declined to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success, finding ambiguity regarding the respondent's understanding of the accommodation request.

The applicant filed two human rights applications alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment, culminating in his termination.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the applications and sought an order declaring the applicant a vexatious litigant.

The Tribunal found no reasonable prospect that the applicant could establish his discipline and termination were intended as a reprisal or were otherwise discriminatory, noting the discipline predated his initial human rights application and was supported by his own insubordinate communications.

The applications were dismissed, but the request to declare the applicant a vexatious litigant was denied.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the NOID by the specified deadline.

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

The respondents requested an interim order striking paragraphs 7-30 of the Application, which detailed events during the applicant's prior employment that were subject to a full and final release.

The current Application alleged discrimination in the provision of services regarding the scheduling of an assessment.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the employment history was not relevant to the current service-related accommodation claim and that striking the paragraphs was the most fair, just, and expeditious way to proceed.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order during Proceeding to amend his human rights application to include allegations of reprisal and to increase the monetary remedies sought.

The respondent had not participated in the proceeding and was previously deemed to have accepted the allegations.

The Tribunal granted the amendment, finding it would not delay the proceeding or cause prejudice to the non-participating respondent.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination based on reprisal or threat of reprisal.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination linked to a Code ground or explain how the respondent's behaviour related to claiming or enforcing a right under the Code.

The Tribunal found it plain and obvious that the allegations did not fall within its jurisdiction and dismissed the application.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his application following a summary hearing.

He argued that the summary hearing process breached the principles of natural justice because it was shorter than scheduled, he was interrupted, and the respondent was not called upon to make submissions.

The Tribunal found no breach of natural justice, noting that it has the authority to control its process and focus the hearing on the essential issues.

The request for reconsideration was denied as it merely attempted to reargue the case and did not meet the criteria under the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

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

On the day of the scheduled hearing, the applicant failed to appear.

The applicant's counsel was present but unable to reach the applicant.

After standing the matter down for an hour, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned, noting the prejudice to the respondent who attended with a representative and five witnesses.

The applicant requested to add two personal respondents and correct the name of a corporate respondent in her human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability, sex, and age.

The respondents did not file a response.

Applying the Smyth and Persaud factors, the Tribunal granted the request to add the personal respondents because the allegations related to their conduct and they held positions of responsibility.

The Tribunal also granted the request to correct the corporate respondent's name.