HRTO 2015

The applicant filed an application alleging the respondents breached Minutes of Settlement by failing to pay her $4,000.

The respondents argued they were relieved from paying because the applicant allegedly breached the confidentiality provision of the settlement by disclosing information to a friend.

The Tribunal found the respondents failed to establish a breach of confidentiality by the applicant, as the evidence only suggested disclosure of the fact that a breach of settlement application was filed, which is a matter of public record.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to pay the $4,000 settlement amount plus pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.

The applicant filed an Application alleging the respondent contravened a previous settlement under s. 45.9(3) of the Human Rights Code.

At the hearing, the respondent's counsel requested an adjournment, claiming he had not received documents indicating the hearing would involve evidence and was therefore unprepared.

The Tribunal found it possible the respondent had not received proper notice and granted the adjournment to ensure fairness, setting peremptory dates and imposing conditions on the respondent regarding document disclosure and contact information.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for the following day, stating she needed time to retain legal counsel after a lawyer advised they would not represent her.

The respondent opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, noting the request was made more than 14 days after the Notice of Hearing was issued and that failure to retain counsel in a timely manner does not constitute an extraordinary circumstance warranting an adjournment.

The applicant alleged discrimination with respect to housing on the basis of family status and receipt of public assistance, as well as reprisal, claiming she faced excessive scrutiny regarding her rent subsidy after making a complaint.

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

The applicant abandoned the hearing partway through.

The Tribunal found no reasonable prospect that the applicant could establish discrimination or reprisal, as the prior complaint was not Code-related and there was no evidence linking the respondent's actions to a prohibited ground.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a 10-year-old student, alleged sex discrimination by the respondent school board, claiming the school failed to appropriately address assaults by a male student who targeted girls.

The Tribunal convened a summary hearing to determine whether the application had no reasonable prospect of success under Rule 19A.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application, finding that the nature of the alleged facts might require the respondent to produce evidence.

The matter was ordered to proceed to a full hearing.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to services by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board on the basis of race, place of origin, and citizenship.

At the hearing, the self-represented applicant consented to the respondent's request that the application be dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the application on consent.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the application on the basis that it appeared to be outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice within the required time.

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

The applicant requested that the Hicks Morley law firm be disqualified from representing any client before the Tribunal because a partner of the firm sits on the Tribunal's Practice Advisory Committee.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that membership on the Practice Advisory Committee does not create a conflict of interest or a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The applicant, an Internal Medicine Graduate, alleged discrimination after failing to match with the respondent's residency program.

Shortly before the scheduled hearing, the applicant requested an adjournment and sought to add the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care and CaRMS as respondents.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, noting it was requested at the last minute without exceptional circumstances and would impede timely access to justice.

The request to add parties was also denied as being too late in the process and because neither proposed party was alleged to have denied the applicant services or employment.

The respondent requested an order deferring the human rights application pending the conclusion of proceedings under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act regarding a workplace injury sustained by the applicant.

The applicant confirmed that he had only filed Intent to Object forms to preserve timelines and had not initiated any appeals that would overlap with the issues in the human rights application.

The Tribunal found that deferral was not appropriate because no overlapping WSIB proceeding had been initiated and denied the respondent's request.

The applicant alleged that the WSIB and his case manager discriminated against him on the basis of perceived mental disability and reprised against him by denying continued loss of earnings benefits for a knee injury.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding it had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal noted it lacks jurisdiction to review WSIB benefit decisions or correct alleged misinterpretations of medical evidence, and the applicant provided no evidence connecting the denial of benefits to discriminatory views or a prior assertion of Code rights.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of an Interim Decision that dismissed her allegations of discrimination and harassment against the union and employer respondents.

She argued the Tribunal erred in its application of the duty to investigate sexual harassment, the duty to enforce a smoking policy, and the union's duty to accommodate, and that it misapprehended evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no conflict with established jurisprudence, no material factual errors, and that the applicant was improperly attempting to relitigate her case.

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

The Tribunal held the matter in abeyance while the Estate prepared an Application for a Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee.

The Tribunal subsequently directed the Estate to provide an update on the status of the appointment process, warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal.

After the Estate failed to respond to multiple communications from the Tribunal, the application was deemed abandoned and dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability.

The Tribunal scheduled a summary hearing to address the respondents' request to dismiss the application under section 45.1 of the Code.

The applicant failed to comply with a direction to produce documents and failed to attend the scheduled summary hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant had abandoned it.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his application alleging housing discrimination based on receipt of social assistance.

The applicant reiterated his position that the adjudicator should be disqualified and reargued issues related to his employment termination.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant failed to meet the threshold criteria for reconsideration and was merely attempting to reargue positions already considered.

The applicant filed a human rights application against Metalumen Lighting and Metalumen.

She subsequently filed a Request for an Order During Proceeding to remove them as respondents, stating she had named them by mistake.

The employer, Metalumen Manufacturing, agreed they were improperly named.

The Tribunal granted the request to remove the respondents and directed the applicant to file a request naming the correct respondents within one week, failing which the file would be closed.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because his newly retained representative was unavailable on the hearing dates.

The respondent consented to the request.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, noting that under its Practice Direction, adjournments are only granted in extraordinary circumstances.

Retaining a representative who is unavailable for previously scheduled dates does not constitute an extraordinary circumstance.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of sex.

The respondents failed to file a Response by the deadline and ignored a subsequent direction from the Tribunal warning of the consequences of non-compliance.

Applying Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, the adjudicator deemed the respondents to have accepted all allegations in the application and waived all rights to further notice or participation.

A case management conference was scheduled to determine the next steps for the applicant to prove her case and seek remedies.

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

The respondent requested dismissal on the basis that another proceeding had dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to file a reply, but the applicant failed to respond to multiple communications, including a follow-up email and letter.

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

The applicant alleged age discrimination after being rejected for an acting Department Head position.

He sought to amend his application to include a subsequent rejection for the permanent position.

The respondent consented to the amendment on the condition that a duplicate application be withdrawn and the hearing adjourned.

The Tribunal granted the amendment and adjournment on consent.

The Tribunal also granted the Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association intervenor status to make arguments and cross-examine witnesses, finding no exceptional circumstances to deny the union's request despite the applicant's opposition.