HRTO 2014

The applicants requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision, alleging new evidence, factual errors, and lack of notice.

The new evidence consisted of a 2012 medical report regarding second-hand smoke, which the adjudicator had previously refused to accept due to untimeliness.

The adjudicator found that the alleged factual errors regarding performance reviews and ranking lists did not alter the fundamental finding that disability played no role in the respondent's actions.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal regarding the respondent's handling and denial of her workers' compensation benefits.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's disagreement with the respondent's decisions and processes did not amount to a Code violation, as there was no evidence linking the alleged unfair treatment to her disability.

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

The applicant in a human rights proceeding sought to introduce documentation regarding his post-employment income and mitigation efforts on the final day of evidence, having failed to disclose it previously.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant's counsel had possessed the documents for seven months without a satisfactory explanation for the delay.

Admitting the late evidence would prejudice the respondent, who had already concluded its case, and would likely necessitate recalling witnesses and scheduling additional hearing days.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The applicant's union, CUPE, filed a Request to Intervene.

Neither the applicant nor the respondent opposed the request.

The Tribunal granted the union's request to intervene, noting that a union typically has an interest in an application brought by a member of its bargaining unit.

The respondent requested that the human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Code or deferred, arguing that the substance of the application was dealt with by the WSIB.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss, finding that the WSIB only determined whether the disabilities were work-related, whereas the Code requires accommodation regardless of cause.

The Tribunal also denied the request to defer, concluding that the WSIB proceeding would not address the accommodation issue and any overlap in damages could be addressed by either body.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding requested an order for third-party disclosure from Yahoo!

Inc. to identify the user of an email account that allegedly sent a reprisal email to her new employer.

The Tribunal denied the request because the applicant failed to serve the third party with the Request for an Order During Proceedings, as required by Rule 19 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The denial was without prejudice to the applicant's right to revive the request upon compliance with the Rules.

The applicant settled her human rights application against the co-respondent union.

The remaining respondent employer sought production of the settlement agreement, arguing the settlement figures were relevant to the damages it might owe, as both respondents had conceded liability for a discriminatory collective agreement provision.

The Tribunal declined to use an O'Connor-type procedure but ordered production, finding that an exception to settlement privilege applied because the settlement figures were arguably relevant to the assessment of damages against the remaining respondent.

The applicant alleged discrimination and harassment based on disability by her employer and a manager.

The respondents brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the allegations under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application had been appropriately dealt with through union grievances.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations relating to the applicant's return to work, finding that a grievance settlement signed by the applicant and the union appropriately dealt with those issues.

The Tribunal also removed the manager as a personal respondent and declined to add the union as a party.

The applicant was directed to provide further particulars regarding her remaining allegations of harassment and reprisal.

The applicant, a secondary school student, alleged discrimination based on the respondents' sports eligibility policies after she transferred schools.

She sought to amend her application to increase her claim for damages and add factual allegations regarding her exclusion from a basketball tournament.

The respondents opposed the amendments, arguing prejudice.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, finding no prejudice to the respondents as the new allegations were limited and the increased damages claim did not change the nature of the allegations.

A case management conference was ordered to address constitutional issues and hearing logistics.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision dismissing 22 applications he filed against the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

The applications challenged the Tribunal's processing of his previous 58 applications and were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and adjudicative immunity.

The Tribunal denied the request for reconsideration, finding that the applicant failed to establish any new facts, conflict with established jurisprudence, or other factors under Rule 26.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure that would warrant reconsidering the decision.

The applicant alleged he was terminated from his employment because of a disability while on medical leave.

Prior to filing his human rights application, he filed a complaint with the Ministry of Labour under the Employment Standards Act.

The Employment Standards Officer found that the applicant was terminated due to the restructuring of the employer's business.

The Tribunal held that the Ministry of Labour proceeding appropriately dealt with the substance of the application, as the factual finding regarding the reason for termination precluded a finding of discrimination.

The application was dismissed pursuant to section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed an Application for Contravention of Settlement.

The respondent failed to file a Response despite being served and receiving a Case Assessment Direction warning of the consequences.

The Tribunal applied Rule 5.5 of its Rules of Procedure, deeming the respondent to have accepted all allegations in the Application and waived its right to participate or receive further notice.

A conference call was scheduled for the applicant to make oral submissions on the breach.

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

The respondent requested that the application be deferred under section 45 of the Human Rights Code pending the conclusion of a concurrent grievance arbitration dealing with the same facts and issues.

The applicant opposed the deferral, mistakenly believing the application would suspend the grievance procedure.

The Tribunal clarified that the grievance had already been referred to arbitration and would proceed.

Finding substantial overlap between the proceedings, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance arbitration.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application was already dealt with by the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) during eviction proceedings.

The applicant alleged discrimination based on disability, claiming the respondent failed to accommodate her mental health challenges by not granting additional time to provide financial information for her housing subsidy.

The Tribunal found that the LTB proceeding focused on eviction for non-payment of rent and did not adjudicate the human rights issue of failure to accommodate.

The request to dismiss the application was denied.

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

The corporate respondent filed for bankruptcy, and the application sent to the individual respondent was returned as moved/unknown.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to advise if he intended to seek a lifting of the bankruptcy stay and to provide a current address for the individual respondent, warning that failure to do so could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond to the directions.

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

The respondent requested an order to defer the human rights application pending the conclusion of a concurrent proceeding before the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The respondent also requested that the applicant be ordered to provide a legible copy of his handwritten application.

The Tribunal granted both requests, finding that deferral was appropriate to avoid inconsistent decisions, and ordered the applicant to file a legible application within 28 days.

The respondents requested that the human rights application alleging sex discrimination and homophobic slurs be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) had already dealt with the substance of the matter.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the WSIB's denial of benefits for traumatic mental stress did not address the substance of the human rights allegations, which included the uttering of slurs, failure to investigate, and termination of employment.

The application was directed to proceed to a hearing.

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled summary hearing by teleconference.

The Tribunal waited 30 minutes, and the applicant did not appear or communicate with the Tribunal.

The application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment.

Following the filing, the Tribunal and the respondent were unable to communicate with the applicant.

Correspondence sent to the provided address was returned as undeliverable, and emails bounced back.

The applicant did not contact the Tribunal to update his contact information.

Consequently, the Tribunal found that the application had been abandoned and dismissed it on that basis.

The respondent requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing on the basis that it had retained new counsel who was unavailable during the week of the hearing.

The applicant opposed the request.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario denied the adjournment, finding that the respondent's retention of unavailable counsel did not constitute exceptional circumstances justifying an adjournment under the Tribunal's Practice Direction.