HRTO 2014

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

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

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice or communicate with the Tribunal.

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

The applicant requested that her identifying information, including her name and position, be anonymized in a previous interim decision and any future decisions.

She argued that disclosure of her disability and her allegations of employer wrongdoing would adversely affect her future employment prospects.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant's circumstances were not exceptional and did not justify departing from the fundamental principle of open justice.

The Tribunal issued Case Assessment Directions indicating that a litigation guardian did not appear to be required and directed the applicant to file the necessary information under Rule A10.4 if one was needed.

The applicant failed to file the required information by the deadline.

Consequently, the Tribunal ordered the removal of the litigation guardian and amended the title of proceedings accordingly.

The applicant consented to dismiss the human rights application against the respondent union, the Association de la police de l'Ontario.

As no parties objected, the Tribunal dismissed the application against the union and amended the style of cause accordingly.

The applicant requested an order to amend her human rights application to provide more information about her teaching background, additional facts regarding contact during her maternity leave, and to request public interest remedies.

The respondent did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal granted the amendment, finding no prejudice to the respondent as the amendments only provided a fuller explanation of the existing discrimination allegations and added public interest remedies.

The respondents requested the removal of four individual respondents from a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on sex and sexual orientation.

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal found insufficient allegations against one individual respondent and removed her as a party.

However, the Tribunal denied the request to remove the remaining three individual respondents, finding sufficient allegations of harassment that could attract personal liability.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the respondents regarding his treatment at a hospital.

The respondent requested dismissal under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, arguing the applicant had commenced a civil action based on the same facts.

The Tribunal found that the civil claim and the application relied on the same facts and sought similar remedies.

As section 34(11) is a mandatory bar against duplicate proceedings, the application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal on the basis of disability.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that a prior Grievance Settlement Board (GSB) arbitration had already dealt with the substance of the allegations.

The Tribunal found that the GSB arbitrator had addressed the core human rights issues, including the failure to accommodate and discriminatory termination, and had awarded reinstatement and lost wages.

Concluding that the substance of the application was appropriately dealt with in the other proceeding, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The applicant alleged that the respondent discriminated against him on the basis of disability during his Small Claims Court proceeding.

He claimed the respondent failed to provide a requested projector for his visual disability, failed to post his hearing room location causing him to walk unnecessarily, and previously required him to pay court fees in cash.

The Tribunal dismissed the cash payment allegation as out of time.

The Tribunal dismissed the remaining allegations, finding that the hearing room was communicated in the Notice of Hearing and the requested media cart was available in the courtroom, but the applicant chose to proceed without it and did not indicate any disadvantage.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the respondent hospital based on disability, gender identity, and family status.

The respondents filed Requests for Order to strike the applicant's Reply for raising new allegations and to remove the personal respondents.

The Tribunal struck portions of the Reply that improperly raised new allegations regarding subsequent events, directing the applicant to file a formal request to amend his application if he wished to pursue them.

The Tribunal also removed the personal respondents, finding no compelling reason to continue the proceeding against them as they were acting in their management roles and the corporate respondent was fully liable.

Finally, the Tribunal ordered the applicant to comply with his disclosure obligations.

The respondents in a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and family status brought a request for an order during proceedings seeking production of various documents.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to produce medical documentation regarding her mother's inability to care for herself and documentation of her attempts to locate alternative care, as these were arguably relevant to the family status claim.

The Tribunal declined to order production of the applicant's workplace injury medical records and WSIB file at this stage, as the respondent had not disputed her need for accommodation.

Following a finding of liability for terminating the applicant's employment on the basis of disability, the Tribunal held a hearing to determine the appropriate remedy.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's evidence regarding his job search was deceitful and lacked credibility, concluding that he largely failed to mitigate his wage loss.

The Tribunal awarded $8,195.08 for four months of lost wages and $12,500 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, which was reduced by $1,500 to sanction the applicant for presenting false evidence.

The respondents were also ordered to complete human rights training and post Human Rights Code cards in their vehicles.

The applicant requested the consolidation of two human rights applications alleging discrimination and reprisal by the respondent university.

The respondent opposed consolidation and requested that certain paragraphs of the reprisal application be struck for irrelevance and repetition of previously dismissed allegations.

The Tribunal granted the consolidation request, finding it would serve adjudicative economy without prejudicing the respondents.

The Tribunal also granted the respondent's request to strike paragraphs 23 to 30 of the reprisal application, as they were irrelevant to the reprisal claims and re-raised previously dismissed allegations.

The applicant filed an application under section 45.9 of the Human Rights Code against the respondent.

The Tribunal scheduled a hearing and provided proper notice to the applicant.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing and provided no explanation for her absence.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed two human rights applications against the respondents, alleging failure to accommodate and breach of a prior settlement agreement.

The Tribunal proposed to consolidate the applications.

The parties agreed that the applications could be heard together.

The Tribunal ordered the applications to be heard together to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings.

Additionally, the Tribunal removed the applicant's paralegal representative as an applicant to the proceeding, noting that a representative charging a fee cannot bring an application on behalf of another person.

The applicant, a resident of a housing co-operative, alleged discrimination on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, and receipt of public assistance, claiming the respondents used another member to harass her and issued unwarranted eviction notices.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal found no evidence linking the respondents' actions to the applicant's race and determined that most of the allegations were out of time.

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

The applicant, a tenant with multiple disabilities, alleged discrimination and reprisal by his landlord regarding housing.

The Tribunal found that the landlord failed to address discriminatory conduct by condominium staff, including threatening to disable the applicant's key fob, demanding unnecessary forms, and refusing to accommodate his need for reasonable notice of inspections.

This conduct breached the applicant's right to equal treatment in accommodation under section 2(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The reprisal allegations were dismissed for lack of evidence.

The Tribunal awarded the applicant $5,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The applicant filed an application alleging sexual harassment in employment.

She also commenced a civil action in the Superior Court of Justice against the respondents based on the same facts and issues.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed pursuant to s. 34(11) of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the civil action sought remedies for the same alleged Code infringements.

To prevent duplication of proceedings, the Tribunal dismissed the application under s. 34(11).

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of sex, gender identity, family status, marital status, and age after being unsuccessful in approximately 30 job applications with the respondents.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to point to any evidence linking the respondents' decisions not to hire her to any prohibited grounds under the Human Rights Code.

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

The applicant in a human rights complaint requested an order to dismiss the respondent's request for compensation for defamation and costs, and to increase her own requested remedy by $16,000 to cover lost summer employment income and disbursements incurred while preparing her case.

The Tribunal dismissed both requests, holding that it has no jurisdiction under section 45.2 of the Human Rights Code to award damages for defamation, to entertain counterclaims, or to award compensation for the time and expense of litigating an application.