HRTO 2015

The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing due to its failure to provide pre-hearing disclosure and the illness of a witness.

The Tribunal found that these reasons did not constitute extraordinary circumstances that would normally justify an adjournment.

However, the Tribunal granted the adjournment to prevent prejudice to the applicant, who was entitled to notice of the respondent's case regarding its duty to accommodate.

The Tribunal converted the first scheduled hearing day into a mediation-adjudication session.

The respondents requested the removal of the personal respondent from an application alleging employment discrimination based on place of origin and citizenship.

The respondents argued the personal respondent was acting in the course of his employment with the corporate respondent.

The Tribunal denied the request, applying the Sigrist and Carson factors.

The Tribunal found that the personal respondent's alleged individual conduct was at the core of the application and could result in personal remedies, making his removal unfair at this stage.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision addressing the respondents' failure to fully comply with a previous order.

The respondents had failed to provide the last known email address and telephone number of a co-respondent, and failed to file an amended Response clarifying certain narrative details.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to provide the contact information and file the amended Response within seven days, failing which the applicant could file a Request for an Order During Proceedings.

The applicant filed a human rights application and subsequently amended it to add the franchisor, Pet Valu Canada Inc., as a respondent.

Pet Valu Canada Inc. failed to file a Response within the directed timeframe and ignored a subsequent warning letter from the Tribunal.

Pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal ordered that the proceeding would continue without further notice to Pet Valu Canada Inc., and deemed the respondent to have waived all rights to participate.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because its former counsel was forced to retire due to a significant medical problem requiring life-threatening surgery.

Although the applicant did not consent to the renewed request, the Tribunal found that the emergent medical issue constituted an exceptional circumstance under its Practice Direction.

The request to adjourn the hearing was granted.

The applicant, a teacher, filed an application alleging that the respondent school board reprised against him for reporting a colleague's improper conduct.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success and whether the applicant should be declared a vexatious litigant.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the alleged retaliation did not constitute a reprisal under section 8 of the Human Rights Code, as the applicant had not claimed or enforced a right under the Code.

The Tribunal declined to declare the applicant a vexatious litigant, finding insufficient evidence of vexatious conduct.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on race after the respondent denied her insurance benefits following a 2004 car accident.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed on a preliminary basis because it was filed outside the one-year limitation period.

The Tribunal found that the last alleged incident of discrimination occurred in 2008, making the application over six years late.

As the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, the Tribunal concluded the delay was not incurred in good faith and dismissed the application.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the human rights application on its own initiative, pending the resolution of the applicant's claim under the Employment Standards Act (ESA).

The applicant opposed the deferral, arguing the cases were unrelated.

The Tribunal found that the ESA proceeding and the human rights application both related primarily to the applicant's dismissal and involved overlapping facts and issues.

The application was deferred pending the outcome of the ESA proceeding.

The respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to set aside an earlier interim decision that deemed it to have accepted all allegations due to a failure to file a response.

The respondent claimed it had not received the Tribunal's mailings.

During a case management conference call, the applicant consented to setting aside the interim decision on the condition that he be allowed to amend his application to increase the monetary compensation sought from $5,000 to $10,000.

The respondent consented to the amendment.

The Tribunal ordered the interim decision set aside, directed the respondent to file a response, and permitted the amendment to the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to services more than one year after the last alleged incident.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed as untimely.

The applicant admitted the delay but claimed it was due to stress.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide medical or other evidence to establish that her stress rendered her incapable of filing within the statutory time limit.

The application was dismissed as the delay was not incurred in good faith.

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

The respondent and intervenor union sought to dismiss the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter was resolved by Minutes of Settlement reached at arbitration.

The Tribunal refused to dismiss the application because the applicant had not signed the settlement and did not implicitly accept its terms.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to amend her application to include her subsequent termination, and deferred the entire application pending the outcome of an expedited arbitration regarding the termination.

The applicant filed an application alleging that the respondent contravened a settlement agreement reached in a previous human rights application.

The respondent admitted to not paying the $1,500.00 agreed upon in the Minutes of Settlement, citing a frozen bank account by the Canada Revenue Agency and subsequent financial difficulties.

The Tribunal found that the respondent breached the settlement agreement and ordered the respondent to pay the outstanding $1,500.00 along with pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application following a summary hearing.

She argued that she had evidence of direct discrimination by the respondents, a vocational association, which she was unable to provide earlier due to a medical condition.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant's mere assertion that evidence would be available, without disclosing what the evidence actually was, did not meet the requirements for reconsideration under the Tribunal's Rules.

The applicant alleged discrimination with respect to services by judges and court staff.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations concerning decisions made by judges, finding it lacked jurisdiction due to the doctrine of judicial immunity.

The Tribunal also denied a request to add an additional personal respondent because the alleged incident occurred more than one year before the application was filed and no good faith explanation for the delay was provided.

The Tribunal ordered a hearing to proceed solely on the allegations that court staff used racial slurs and exhibited racist attitudes towards the applicant.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the applicant's allegations of age discrimination in employment.

The applicant requested to add an individual as a personal respondent.

The Tribunal denied the summary hearing request, finding that the issues required a hearing on the merits to resolve.

The Tribunal also denied the applicant's request to add the personal respondent, noting that the individual had not been served with the request and it would be unfair to add him at this late stage.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent school board.

After failing to comply with disclosure rules, the Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction.

The applicant responded via email expressing frustration and stating it was impossible to continue.

The Tribunal sought confirmation of his intent to attend the scheduled hearing, but the applicant failed to respond to subsequent emails and a telephone call.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant had decided not to pursue the matter and dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination and reprisal with respect to employment.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the conclusion of concurrent grievance arbitrations and an Ontario Labour Relations Board application.

The respondent supported deferral, while the applicant opposed it.

The Tribunal found that deferral was appropriate to avoid different conclusions about the facts in concurrent proceedings, and deferred the application pending the completion of the other proceedings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal by the respondents.

The last alleged incident occurred on June 26, 2013, but the application was filed on June 27, 2014, one day outside the one-year limitation period under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed on a preliminary basis.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide any explanation for the delay and therefore did not establish that the delay was incurred in good faith under section 34(2).

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination, while concurrently pursuing two union grievances based on the same facts.

The Tribunal considered whether to defer the application pending the outcome of the grievance process.

Noting the Supreme Court of Canada's affirmation that grievance arbitrators have the authority to enforce human rights statutes, the Tribunal applied its normal approach of deferring to concurrent proceedings where there is substantial overlap in facts and issues.

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

The respondent employer requested an order requiring the applicant to sign a consent form allowing the respondent access to the applicant's medical records held by its internal Occupational Medicine Department.

The respondent argued it needed these records to file a complete Response to the applicant's disability discrimination claim.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that the respondent could not meaningfully respond to the allegations without access to its own records regarding its interactions with the applicant, and ordered the applicant to provide the consent form.