HRTO 2014

The applicant alleged discrimination based on marital status and association, as well as reprisal, against the respondents.

Both parties agreed that the Tribunal should defer consideration of the application until the applicant's parallel civil claim concluded.

The Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application under section 45 of the Human Rights Code due to the parties' consent and the significant factual overlap between the proceedings, which created a risk of duplicative evidence and inconsistent findings.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order during Proceedings to add her union, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), as a respondent to her human rights application against her employer.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant failed to identify any events or factual foundation that could give rise to a finding of liability against the union under the Human Rights Code.

Dissatisfaction with the union's representation is not, in and of itself, a basis for adding it as a respondent.

The applicant alleged age discrimination after being unsuccessful in a competition for a teaching position.

In his Reply, the applicant raised new allegations including reprisal and systemic discrimination in other hiring decisions.

The respondent brought a Request for Order During Proceedings (RFOP) to strike the Reply, and the applicant brought an RFOP seeking production of numerous documents relating to other hires and teacher lists.

The Tribunal dismissed the request to strike the Reply but clarified that only the original hiring allegation was properly before it.

The Tribunal largely dismissed the applicant's document production request, finding the requested documents not arguably relevant to the single hiring decision at issue, except for the salary information of the successful candidate and the applicant.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging reprisal, poisoned environment, and discrimination based on sex and disability, stemming from a 2005 incident where she witnessed the former Executive Director sexually assault a colleague.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for delay, as the application was filed more than one year after the last alleged incident.

Following a preliminary hearing by teleconference, the Tribunal dismissed the allegations relating to the 2005 incident and the subsequent investigation as out of time.

The Tribunal directed an in-person preliminary hearing to determine whether the delay in filing the remaining allegations was incurred in good faith, whether the respondent would suffer substantial prejudice, and whether certain allegations have no reasonable prospect of success.

The respondents requested the removal of the personal respondents from the application.

The applicant, though represented by counsel, failed to respond to this request.

Following a Case Assessment Direction warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal, the applicant still did not reply.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded the application was abandoned and dismissed it.

The respondent requested reconsideration of an interim decision that refused to dismiss the human rights application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The union, OPSEU, sought intervenor status and supported the reconsideration request.

The Tribunal granted OPSEU intervenor status but denied the reconsideration request.

The Tribunal held that the interim decision was not a 'final decision' subject to reconsideration under its Rules, as it did not dispose of a central issue.

Furthermore, the Tribunal declined to reconsider the decision on its own motion, finding no compelling or extraordinary circumstances to outweigh the public interest in finality.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the Toronto Catholic District School Board more than a year after the last alleged incident of discrimination.

The applicant argued that the delay was incurred in good faith because her mother, acting as litigation guardian, was focused on settling her in a new school, temporarily lost custody, and faced criminal charges.

The Tribunal found that the mother made a conscious choice not to seek redress initially, and that neither the loss of custody nor the pending criminal charges legally precluded her from filing an application or a declaration as litigation guardian.

The Tribunal concluded the delay was not incurred in good faith and dismissed the application against the Toronto Catholic District School Board for delay.

The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration four years after a final decision in her favour, seeking to add or substitute new corporate and personal respondents to aid in enforcing the Tribunal's order.

The Tribunal denied the request, holding that it was functus officio and lacked jurisdiction to reopen the decision, hold a fresh hearing against new parties, or grant an oppression remedy for creditors.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the Children's Aid Society and its employees when they took his child into care.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success, or alternatively, to defer it pending an ongoing child protection application before the Ontario Court of Justice.

The Tribunal found that the same underlying events gave rise to both proceedings and that the child protection proceeding was well advanced.

To avoid inconsistent findings of fact, the Tribunal deferred the human rights application pending the conclusion of the child protection proceedings.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to goods, services, and facilities based on race, colour, age, and association.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intention to Dismiss because the application failed to identify specific acts of discrimination committed by the respondent school board.

Despite being directed to provide written submissions, the applicant failed to explain how the described incidents amounted to discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

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

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, directing the applicant to respond by a specified date.

The applicant failed to respond to the NOID.

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

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceeding to amend her human rights application to include an allegation of reprisal based on the contents of the respondent's Response.

The respondent opposed the request, arguing it would unduly complicate the hearing.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting that the amendment would not unduly lengthen or complicate the hearing or prejudice the respondent, while leaving issues of privilege regarding the pleading's contents to the hearing adjudicator.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found she was harassed by the respondent regarding requests for medical documentation but dismissed her other claims.

The applicant argued against the Tribunal's credibility assessments, damages award, and dismissal of her other claims.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant failed to provide new evidence, demonstrate a conflict with established jurisprudence, or establish other factors outweighing the public interest in the finality of decisions.

The request was an attempt to re-argue the case, which is not permitted on reconsideration.

The applicant alleged that the respondent hospital discriminated against him on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, and place of origin when he was involuntarily restrained and injected with drugs.

The respondent maintained that the applicant was involuntarily admitted under the Mental Health Act and restrained when he attempted to leave.

At a summary hearing, the applicant failed to provide any evidence linking the hospital's actions to the prohibited grounds, instead alleging discrimination based on his non-membership in the Freemasons.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as having no reasonable prospect of success.

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

The respondents brought a request for an interim order to remove the individual respondents and to compel disclosure of the applicant's Occupational Health file.

The Tribunal granted the request to remove the individual respondents, finding that the corporate respondent accepted potential liability and there was no compelling reason to continue against the individuals.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for disclosure of the Occupational Health file as premature, noting that the obligation to disclose arguably relevant documents arises after a Notice of Hearing is issued.

The applicant, alleging discrimination in employment based on disability, filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking early production of the respondent's group insurance policy prior to a scheduled mediation.

The Tribunal denied the request as premature, finding that the applicant failed to establish exceptional circumstances for early production under Rule 16, noting that as a current employee, he could obtain the policy directly from the insurer.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceeding to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred on consent pending the conclusion of another proceeding.

The respondent did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the other proceeding had concluded and it was appropriate for the application to proceed to the next stage.

The applicants filed applications alleging that the Ontario Human Rights Commission's Policy and Guidelines on Racism and Racial Discrimination discriminated against them.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the applicants did not allege any specific acts of discrimination or personal disadvantage resulting from the Policy.

The applicants argued they had public interest standing to challenge the Policy.

The Tribunal dismissed the applications, holding that under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code, an applicant must assert that their own rights have been infringed, and there is no public interest standing to challenge a policy that does not affect the applicant.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the outcome of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Act claim.

The applicant's representative subsequently advised the Tribunal that the request was filed in error and that the WSIA proceeding was still ongoing.

The respondent agreed that the application should remain deferred.

The Tribunal declined to reactivate the application, ordering that it remain deferred pending the final determination of the WSIA claim.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision dismissing his application alleging racial discrimination in employment.

The applicant argued that the Tribunal failed to consider certain witness testimony and improperly relied on source code repository evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant was attempting to re-argue his case and had not established any new facts, lack of notice, conflict with established jurisprudence, or other factors warranting reconsideration under Rule 26.5.