HRTO 2014

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

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed for delay.

The Tribunal scheduled a preliminary teleconference hearing to address the timeliness of the application.

When the applicant failed to call in or otherwise communicate his inability to participate, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

A hearing was scheduled, but the applicant failed to attend.

The Tribunal waited 45 minutes before proceeding in the applicant's absence.

Satisfied that the applicant had notice of the hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant, a parent with a stuttering disability, alleged discrimination in services because his children's school did not permit direct email communication with teachers.

The applicant argued that telephone communication was difficult for him and requested email access as an accommodation.

The Tribunal found that the school provided multiple alternative means of communication, including notes, Friday Files, and emailing the principal or office administrator.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, as his disability-related needs were met by the existing communication methods, and the Code requires accommodation of needs rather than preferences.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a security guard at the Toronto Immigration Holding Centre, filed an application alleging discrimination and reprisal by his employer and union.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that the employment appeared to fall under federal jurisdiction.

Following written submissions, the Tribunal found that security services at immigration detention centres constitute an integral part of a federal undertaking, analogous to airport security.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant alleged that an adjudicator at the Landlord and Tenant Board discriminated against his mother based on her place of origin during a hearing, and that other Board members failed to investigate.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis of adjudicative immunity.

The applicant argued that the Canadian Bill of Rights and principles of natural justice overrode this immunity.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the Bill of Rights does not apply to provincial tribunals and that adjudicative immunity prevents the Tribunal from reviewing the decisions or hearing conduct of other adjudicative bodies.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal arising from a grade dispute.

The respondents requested that the application be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success and that the individual respondents be removed.

The applicant requested to amend her application to add new particulars regarding the impact of the respondents' actions on her paralegal licensing.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss the application, granted the request to remove the individual respondents as there was no compelling juridical reason for them to remain, and permitted the applicant to amend her application.

The individual respondents requested an adjournment of the hearing because one of them was diagnosed with a serious illness and required surgery.

The applicant opposed the request, noting the respondents' failure to comply with pre-hearing disclosure obligations.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding the medical circumstances extraordinary, but ordered the respondents to comply with their disclosure obligations under Rules 16 and 17 within 21 days.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of disability.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed as an abuse of process because the applicant had signed a full and final release upon termination.

The applicant argued the release should be set aside due to fraudulent misrepresentation, claiming the respondent falsely stated her position was eliminated due to restructuring without disclosing plans to hire an on-site property accountant.

The Tribunal found no false representations were made, upheld the validity of the release, and dismissed the application as an abuse of process.

The applicant sought to amend her human rights application to include new remedies and narrative allegations regarding her disability.

The respondent opposed the amendment and requested production of the applicant's medical records from 2005 to 2011.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to amend, finding no sufficient prejudice to the respondent.

The Tribunal also granted the respondent's request for production, finding the medical records met the threshold of arguable relevance given the applicant's allegations regarding her disability.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking to compel the respondent to produce all arguably relevant documents in its possession.

The respondent failed to comply with the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure regarding document disclosure and did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, ordering the respondent to deliver the documents and warning that failure to comply could result in the Tribunal refusing to consider its evidence at the hearing.

The respondent requested an adjournment of a scheduled summary hearing due to an unexpected personal familial matter.

The applicant had also recently filed a Notice of Constitutional Question challenging the Tribunal's summary hearing process.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, noting that while adjournments are generally only granted in exceptional circumstances, the combination of the respondent's request and the need for submissions on the applicant's wide-ranging constitutional claims made an adjournment appropriate.

In an interim decision regarding case management issues, the Tribunal ordered the applicant to produce supporting documentation for various bank deposits and to clarify the status of her bank accounts.

The Tribunal also permitted the applicant's treating physician to testify, noting he was not being called as an expert, but ordered the applicant to immediately produce the physician's medical records to the respondent to prevent trial by ambush.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on family status and association after her employment was terminated following workplace confrontations.

The applicant also filed a union grievance and faced criminal charges arising from the same events.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the application pending the resolution of the other proceedings.

Finding a clear overlap of facts and issues, and to avoid inconsistent findings, the Tribunal ordered the application deferred until the grievance and criminal proceedings are resolved.

The applicant filed a Contravention of Settlement Application alleging the respondent failed to make settlement payments within the timeframes specified in the Minutes of Settlement.

The respondent argued the application should be dismissed because the parties had signed a subsequent document amending the payment timeline.

The Tribunal found that the amending document did not clearly extend the payment deadline as the respondent claimed, and that oral evidence would be required to interpret the agreement and assess any damages.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application and directed that a half-day in-person hearing be scheduled.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend the Application, which the respondent did not oppose.

The respondent also requested to amend its Response and to remove a personally named respondent as a party, to which the applicant consented after receiving assurances regarding vicarious liability.

The Tribunal granted the requests to amend the pleadings and removed the personally named respondent from the Application.

The applicant in a human rights complaint alleging disability discrimination requested to amend the Application to add additional remedies.

The respondent did not oppose the proposed amendment, although it denied the applicant's entitlement to the new remedies.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend the Application, noting the lack of opposition and the Tribunal's rules permitting amendments to provide for fair, just, and expeditious resolution.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding requested an extension of time to provide two medical witness statements to the respondents and the Tribunal, and requested that the witnesses be allowed to testify by telephone or videoconference.

The Tribunal granted the extension of time, noting that while the applicant's justification was weak, the respondent still had time to prepare and failed to explain how the 14-day delay was prejudicial.

However, the Tribunal denied the request for the witnesses to testify by telephone or videoconference, as the applicant provided no reasons for the request and the nature of the evidence made telephone testimony inappropriate.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination based on place of origin more than a year after his termination.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for delay.

The applicant argued he filed on time alongside his sister's application, or alternatively, that his delay was in good faith due to seeking help from the Workers' Action Centre and mistakenly applying to the Ministry of Labour.

The Tribunal rejected these arguments, finding no evidence of a timely filing and concluding the delay was not incurred in good faith.

The application was dismissed.

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

The respondent argued the application was barred because the applicant had signed a full and final release settling her union grievances, which covered the same human rights allegations.

The applicant claimed she signed the release under duress from her union representatives.

The Tribunal found the pressure described by the applicant did not amount to legal duress or coercion.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as an abuse of process, holding that the release was legally binding and barred the human rights claims.

The respondents in a human rights application requested an order for the production of the applicant's employment records from a non-party, Craiglee Nursing Home.

The respondents, who were former owners and managers of the nursing home, argued they no longer had access to the records needed to respond to the applicant's allegations of failure to accommodate.

The Tribunal found the requested documents arguably relevant and ordered the non-party to produce them, subject to the non-party's right to object.