HRTO 2015

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment.

The respondents requested the application be dismissed under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, arguing the applicant had commenced a civil suit regarding the same facts.

The Tribunal reviewed the Statement of Claim and found it alleged wrongful dismissal, bad faith, and racial discrimination based on the same facts as the application.

The Tribunal concluded that the requirements of section 34(11) were met, as a civil proceeding seeking damages for alleged Code violations had been commenced and not finally determined.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her application for being outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant alleged that the Tribunal ignored evidence of bullying and harassment and violated its own rules.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate how the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence or involved a matter of public importance, and failed to identify factors outweighing the public interest in the finality of decisions.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Hearing and a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to disclose documents and witness lists by specific deadlines.

The applicant failed to comply with the directions and did not communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned and cancelled the scheduled hearing.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to amend the remedy sought and for the production of documents.

The respondent did not reply.

The Tribunal granted the request, allowing the applicant to increase the general damages claimed to $15,000 and add a claim for lost wages of $13,662.

The Tribunal also ordered the respondent to produce the requested documents, finding them arguably relevant to the issues raised in the application.

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend her human rights application to add allegations of reprisal against the respondent.

The applicant alleged that the respondent's president repeatedly contacted her after she filed the application, causing her emotional stress.

The respondent did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal granted the request to add the reprisal allegations regarding the respondent's communications, but excluded allegations regarding a co-worker's threats, as the co-worker was not a named respondent.

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

She failed to attend a scheduled mediation session and subsequently failed to respond to multiple written directions from the Tribunal inquiring about her intentions to pursue the application, noting only in one email that the respondent college had closed and declared bankruptcy.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed her application for lack of jurisdiction.

The original application alleged harassment in housing based on ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, and reprisal, but failed to connect the alleged conduct to any prohibited ground under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not establish any of the criteria under Rule 26 for reconsideration, as her submissions merely mirrored those previously considered.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The respondents requested to remove the individual respondents as parties to the human rights application.

The corporate respondent acknowledged responsibility for the actions of the individual respondents, who were acting within the scope of their employment, and accepted liability if their actions were found to violate the Code.

Applying the factors from Sigrist and Persaud, the Tribunal found no compelling juridical reason to keep the individuals as parties and granted the request to remove them.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant argued that he disagreed with the decision and restated previous submissions.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that disagreement with a decision is not a valid ground for reconsideration and the applicant failed to meet any of the criteria under Rule 26 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

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

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation session and did not communicate with the Tribunal to explain the absence.

The Tribunal subsequently directed the applicant to advise of her intentions regarding the application, warning that failure to respond could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant did not respond to the direction.

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

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

The respondent failed to file a Response within the required timeframe, even after being granted an extension.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision warning the respondent that failure to file a complete Response by October 19, 2015, could result in the Tribunal proceeding without their participation and deeming them to have accepted all allegations.

The applicant, a retired member of the respondent who self-identifies as an aboriginal person, alleged discrimination on the basis of race, ancestry, and ethnic origin.

He claimed the respondent discriminated against him by complying with a Canada Customs and Revenue Agency garnishment order and by refusing to reinstate his lapsed benefits coverage.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and found no reasonable prospect of success, as the applicant provided no evidence linking the respondent's actions to a prohibited ground under the Human Rights Code.

The application was dismissed.

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

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation session and subsequently failed to respond to a Tribunal direction inquiring about their intentions with respect to the application.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant argued he suffered from a disability during the relevant events.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting the original dismissal was based on a lack of evidence of prejudicial or discriminatory stereotypes, not a finding on disability.

The applicant failed to meet the threshold criteria for reconsideration.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application as abandoned after she failed to attend a summary hearing.

The applicant argued that her application was sufficient and disagreed with the decision to convene a summary hearing, but did not address her failure to attend.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding no conflict with established jurisprudence and no extraordinary circumstances outweighing the public interest in the finality of decisions.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination by a federal Member of Parliament based on comments made during a public meeting.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) as the respondent appeared to fall under federal jurisdiction.

Applying the 'plain and obvious' test, the Tribunal concluded that the allegations related to the respondent's role as a Member of Parliament, which falls outside provincial jurisdiction.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination by a federal Member of Parliament based on comments made during a public meeting.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss, questioning whether the matter fell within provincial jurisdiction.

Applying the 'plain and obvious' test, the Tribunal determined that the allegations related to the respondent acting in his capacity as a federal Member of Parliament.

Consequently, the matter fell under federal jurisdiction, and the application was dismissed pursuant to Rule 13.1 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

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

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation session and subsequently failed to respond to multiple communications from the Tribunal directing her to advise of her intentions regarding the application.

As a result, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

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

The Tribunal sent multiple emails to the applicant requesting available dates to reschedule a summary hearing and warning that failure to respond could result in dismissal.

The applicant failed to respond to any correspondence.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to be filed outside the one-year time limit.

The applicant argued that a recent Small Claims Court decision constituted the last incident in a series of discriminatory incidents.

The Tribunal found that the last incident involving the provision of services by the respondent occurred when the doctor-patient relationship ended over five years prior.

As the applicant failed to establish a series of incidents or a good faith explanation for the delay, the application was dismissed.