HRTO 2014

The applicant filed a Form 10 seeking to add the new operating name of the respondent business as a party.

Following the applicant's termination, the shares of the corporate respondent were purchased and its operating name was changed.

The Tribunal found that because the business changed hands via a share purchase rather than an asset sale, the corporate respondent remained liable despite the change in ownership and name.

The Tribunal amended the style of cause to reflect the correct name and granted the new ownership 35 days to file a Response.

The applicant and respondent both filed written submissions regarding the respondent's late delivery of arguably relevant documents.

The applicant refused to accept the courier delivery of the documents, which were delivered approximately three weeks late.

The applicant requested that the hearing be expedited and the respondent be precluded from presenting documents at the hearing.

The respondent requested that the applicant be directed to accept the late delivery.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to accept the delivery, finding no real prejudice to the applicant, and denied the applicant's requests.

The applicant requested that his four outstanding applications before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario be placed in abeyance due to illness.

Although the applicant failed to fully comply with a previous direction to provide an estimate of his recovery time, three of the four respondents agreed to a three-month deferral.

Given the medical documentation provided and the lack of claimed prejudice by the respondents, the Tribunal granted a three-month deferral and set out conditions for re-activating or further extending the deferral.

In an interim decision, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario addressed several procedural requests.

The applicant's request for anonymization was denied as premature, as no exceptional circumstances or substantial risks to privacy were established at this early stage.

The respondents' request to remove the personal respondent was granted on consent.

Finally, the Tribunal dismissed the applicant's objection to the respondents filing a prior Memorandum of Agreement, noting that confidentiality clauses typically permit disclosure required by law, and directed the applicant to respond to the respondents' motion to strike.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination based on disability.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the application because the allegations were part of an ongoing union grievance.

The applicant consented to the deferral but sought to attach conditions.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance proceeding but declined to attach the requested conditions, noting that the applicant could request reactivation in accordance with the Tribunal's Rules if her human rights issues were not appropriately dealt with.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, questioning its jurisdiction as the application did not identify specific acts of discrimination.

After receiving the applicant's submissions, the Tribunal found it was not plain and obvious that the application was outside its jurisdiction.

The application was ordered to be delivered to the respondent.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability after her registration in a master's program was deactivated.

The respondent university brought a request to dismiss the application for delay, arguing it was filed more than one year after the last incident of discrimination.

The Tribunal found that the last incident of discrimination was the applicant's withdrawal from the program, and that subsequent communications with the university were merely continuing effects rather than fresh incidents.

The Tribunal further held that the applicant failed to establish that the delay was incurred in good faith, as she provided no medical evidence of inability to pursue the claim and was working full-time during the relevant period.

The application was dismissed as untimely.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging she was assaulted by an individual respondent at her workplace.

The application sent to the individual respondent's former workplace was returned.

The applicant requested an order directing the Toronto Police Service to produce the individual respondent's current address.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting its authority under the Human Rights Code and Rules of Procedure to order non-party production to ensure the fair, just, and expeditious resolution of the matter.

The applicant failed to comply with the Tribunal's Notice of Hearing and a subsequent Case Assessment Direction requiring the exchange and filing of documents, witness lists, and witness statements.

The applicant also failed to respond to the respondent's request to dismiss the application.

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

The applicant filed an Application alleging that the respondent contravened the terms of a settlement reached at mediation by failing to pay ongoing wages.

The Minutes of Settlement provided for a single payment of $20,000, which was paid.

The applicant relied on a Full and Final Release, signed only by her, which referenced the continuation of regular earnings.

The Tribunal found no ambiguity in the Minutes of Settlement and held that the parol evidence rule precluded consideration of extrinsic evidence from the mediation.

The Application was dismissed as there was no contravention of the settlement.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to services.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to be filed beyond the one-year time limit.

The Tribunal found that the last incident of alleged discrimination occurred on September 12, 2012, making the December 26, 2013 application untimely.

The applicant provided no explanation for the delay, failing to establish that it was incurred in good faith.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested to amend her human rights application to withdraw allegations that her termination was a reprisal, focusing instead on allegations of harassment and a poisoned environment.

She also sought to clarify language regarding how her culture affected her feelings about complaining to her employer.

The respondent consented to the deletions but objected to the additions.

The Tribunal granted the amendments, noting that no findings of discrimination were being made at this stage.

The Tribunal also directed the respondent to indicate whether it consented to the applicant's request for an adjournment due to a family medical emergency abroad.

The applicant filed a Request for Order seeking to add the principal owner of the respondent corporation as an individual respondent and to substantially amend the remedies sought in her human rights application.

The respondent opposed the amendment to remedies, arguing it affected its risk assessment and mediation position.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend the remedies, finding no prejudice as a hearing date had not yet been set and the Tribunal is not bound by the remedies sought in the application.

The issue of adding the individual respondent was deferred to the parties or the hearing adjudicator.

The respondent requested deferral of the human rights application pending the applicant's appeal to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) and challenges to Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) decisions.

The Tribunal denied the deferral request, finding that the WSIAT appeal regarding the quantum of a Non-Economic Loss award and the WSIB challenges regarding physiotherapy and computer training did not have a direct bearing on whether the respondent accommodated the applicant up to the point of undue hardship.

The Tribunal concluded there was no risk of overlapping or conflicting decisions.

The applicant filed human rights applications against her employer, the Toronto Transit Commission, and her union, alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the applications for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations regarding the termination of the applicant's employment and all allegations against the union, finding no evidence linking the respondents' actions to the applicant's disability.

However, the Tribunal allowed the allegation regarding a delayed wage increase to continue in the Tribunal process.

Three consolidated human rights applications were scheduled for a summary hearing via telephone conference.

The applicants failed to attend the hearing and did not communicate with the Tribunal to explain their absence.

The Tribunal dismissed the applications on the basis that they were deemed to have been abandoned.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability.

The respondent sought early dismissal or deferral of the application pending the conclusion of a concurrent grievance arbitration.

The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the facts and issues in the application and the grievance, which also alleged discrimination.

The Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the grievance process.

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 required deadline.

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

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

The respondent was placed in receivership by an Order of the Superior Court of Justice under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The Tribunal found that the application is stayed pursuant to the Court's Order, which prohibits proceedings against the respondent without the Receiver's consent or leave of the Court.

The applicant was directed to advise the Tribunal of her intentions within 30 days, failing which the application may be deemed abandoned.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because its human resources manager, a key witness, was on an extended pregnancy and parental leave.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting its policy against adjournments absent extraordinary circumstances.

The Tribunal found that adjourning the matter for almost a year was not fair, just, or expeditious, as another witness might be able to testify, the hearing could commence with the applicant's case, and the respondent could renew its request after the applicant's case closed.