HRTO 2015

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

The applicant argued that documents linked his file to another Tribunal file.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant failed to establish any threshold criteria for reconsideration and did not explain how the Tribunal had jurisdiction over an agency providing services outside of Ontario for events that occurred outside the province.

The applicant filed a human rights application 18 months after his employment was terminated, outside the one-year limitation period under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued the delay was incurred in good faith because he was pursuing other legal proceedings, including an OLRB application and a Small Claims Court action, which were subsequently withdrawn or discontinued.

The Tribunal found that waiting for other legal proceedings to conclude does not constitute a valid explanation for delay.

The application was dismissed as the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction.

The applicant, a teacher, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal by the respondent school board.

She subsequently filed multiple Requests for Order During Proceedings seeking to amend her application to include additional allegations, evidence, and parties.

The Tribunal allowed the application to be amended to include an allegation that an internal investigation report was a reprisal for filing the human rights application.

The Tribunal denied the other requested amendments, finding they were either evidentiary in nature, untimely, or would unduly expand the scope of the proceedings.

The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Following a summary hearing, the Tribunal ordered the respondent restaurant to file a full response.

The respondent restaurant failed to do so.

The Tribunal deemed the respondent restaurant to have accepted all allegations in the application and waived its right to participate in the proceedings.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to employment regarding three disciplinary suspensions imposed by her managers.

The applicant had also initiated three grievances through her union regarding the same disciplinary issues.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the conclusion of the grievances.

Finding substantial overlap between the facts and allegations in the application and the grievances, the Tribunal deferred the application to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions.

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

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to file a Reply or Form 10.

Despite being granted an extension of time, the applicant failed to provide submissions or communicate further with the Tribunal.

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

The applicant filed a second Request for Reconsideration of a decision dismissing her human rights application.

The Tribunal denied the request because it was filed after the 30-day deadline set out in Rule 26.1 of the HRTO Rules of Procedure.

Additionally, the Tribunal found no exceptional circumstances to justify considering a subsequent request for reconsideration of the same decision under Rule 26.7.1.

The request was dismissed.

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

A Notice of Mediation was issued, but the applicant failed to attend the scheduled mediation session and did not communicate with the Tribunal.

After the applicant failed to respond to a subsequent Tribunal direction warning of potential abandonment, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to his termination from employment.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the applicant's union had filed a grievance regarding the same termination.

The intervenor union supported deferral, while the self-represented applicant objected.

The Tribunal found substantial overlap between the facts and allegations in the application and the grievance.

To avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the conclusion of the grievance arbitration.

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

The Tribunal scheduled a mediation session, which the applicant failed to attend without explanation.

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 Tribunal's correspondence.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging racial discrimination at the respondent's gas station, describing a joint experience with her husband.

The Tribunal previously issued an interim decision accepting the application on behalf of the husband as well.

The respondent sought reconsideration.

The Tribunal reconsidered its decision, noting it was made without hearing from the husband, and ordered that he must file a separate application or a consent form if he wishes to pursue an application.

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

The respondent sought early dismissal of the application because the applicant had signed a full and final release in exchange for a severance package.

The applicant argued the release should be set aside due to economic duress, lack of capacity due to visual impairment, and fraudulent misrepresentation.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had realistic alternatives to signing the release, had the capacity to understand it, and failed to establish that the respondent intentionally deceived him.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The applicant alleged discrimination with respect to services because of a perceived disability (drug addiction) contrary to the Human Rights Code.

She claimed that nurses at the respondent hospital denied her proper care and pain medication for a ruptured appendix because they perceived her to be a drug seeker.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and found that the applicant's claim was based on speculation and that there was insufficient evidence to link the inadequate care she allegedly received to a perceived disability.

The application was dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing of his human rights application alleging discrimination in employment.

Despite being given additional time to travel to the hearing after his counsel contacted him, the applicant did not appear.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had sufficient notice and time to attend, and dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging a discriminatory lay-off that occurred outside the one-year time limit under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued the delay was incurred in good faith because she was waiting for the conclusion of a grievance process and an internal employer investigation.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that waiting for other legal proceedings or internal investigations to conclude does not constitute a valid explanation for delay in filing an application.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings asking the adjudicator to recuse himself from further dealings with the human rights application due to alleged bias.

The applicant argued that the adjudicator's past experience with the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal created a conflict of interest, and that previous interim decisions demonstrated a failure to accommodate his psychological disability.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that disagreement with previous rulings does not establish bias, and that an informed person would not conclude there was a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in housing based on ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, and reprisal.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination linked to a Code ground.

The applicant's response reiterated her allegations without establishing a nexus to the Code.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it plain and obvious that the subject matter was not within its jurisdiction.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application.

He argued that he needed an interpreter and had new evidence.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that the applicant had failed to request an interpreter despite being directed to do so, had participated fully in English at the summary hearing, and did not show that the new evidence was previously unavailable.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant sought to amend her human rights application to include allegations of harassment and discrimination regarding the accommodation process prior to her termination.

The respondent opposed the amendment, arguing prejudice due to the passage of time and the closure of its business.

The Tribunal allowed the amendment in part, finding that the specific allegations relating to emails from September and October 2014 were timely as they occurred within one year of the request to amend.

Allegations prior to August 20, 2014, were deemed untimely but could be introduced as background information.

The Tribunal convened a summary hearing by conference call to determine whether the application should be dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant received proper notice but failed to attend the hearing.

In the absence of the applicant or any explanation for her non-attendance, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.