HRTO 2015

The applicants filed Form 9 Requests to Withdraw an Application against the personal respondents.

The Tribunal found no reason to deny the requests and granted them, withdrawing the applications against the personal respondents.

The applicant sought to amend his human rights application to add allegations of incidents that occurred after the application was filed and while it was deferred pending a grievance proceeding.

The respondent opposed the amendment, arguing it was untimely and should have been filed within one year of the incidents.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that if the applicant had filed the request during the deferral period, the Tribunal likely would not have dealt with it.

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

The trustee in bankruptcy for the respondent filed a Notice of Stay of Proceedings, advising that the respondent had filed an assignment in bankruptcy.

The Tribunal held that because the application sought monetary relief, it was a claim provable in bankruptcy and subject to the statutory stay under section 69.3(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The application was stayed, and the applicant was directed to advise whether she intended to bring a motion in court to lift the stay.

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

A summary hearing was scheduled by teleconference, and notice was properly delivered to the applicant.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing or communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the hearing because a mediation was scheduled for a concurrent complaint filed in Quebec regarding the same subject matter.

The respondent consented to the adjournment and supported deferring the Application.

The Tribunal found that the subject matter of the Application was identical to the Quebec complaint and raised jurisdictional concerns.

To avoid inconsistent findings, the Tribunal deferred the Application pending the conclusion of the Quebec proceeding and cancelled the scheduled hearing dates.

The applicant's representative, whose application for a paralegal license was denied by the Law Society of Upper Canada for lack of good character, sought to represent the applicant before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario under the unpaid friend exemption.

The Tribunal found that the representative met the criteria for the exemption, as he was acting on only three matters, was not receiving compensation, and was not carrying on a profession providing legal services.

The representative was permitted to act for the applicant at the next stage of the proceeding.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding alleging discrimination in services based on disability requested the production of various documents from the respondent college, including records of prior formal and informal complaints made by other students.

The Tribunal denied the broad requests for all complaints as disproportionate and lacking specific relevance.

However, the Tribunal ordered an O'Connor-type procedure for any formal complaints of disability discrimination made specifically against the program coordinator whose actions formed the basis of the applicant's allegations, requiring the respondent to produce any such records to the Tribunal for review.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing based on receipt of social assistance, 15 months after being evicted for rent arrears pursuant to a Landlord and Tenant Board consent order.

At a preliminary hearing, the adjudicator refused the applicant's request to recuse herself for alleged bias.

The Tribunal dismissed the application on three separate grounds: it had no reasonable prospect of success because the applicant did not qualify for the rent subsidy he claimed; it was an abuse of process because it sought to relitigate the LTB consent order; and it was filed outside the one-year limitation period without a good faith explanation for the delay.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding brought preliminary requests to amend the application, compel production of medical documents, and permit two medical witnesses to testify by teleconference.

The Tribunal granted the amendments on consent.

Regarding document production, the respondent was ordered to provide its communications with the third party holding the documents.

The Tribunal permitted one doctor to testify by teleconference as his credibility was not a significant issue, but required the other doctor to attend in person because his credibility was critical to the proceeding.

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

The applicant explained that she missed the hearing because her mother had a serious accident and was in critical condition in the hospital.

The respondent did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's circumstances were exceptional and that factors existed outweighing the public interest in the finality of decisions.

The request for reconsideration was granted and a new summary hearing was ordered.

The respondent requested to reschedule the hearing dates because the assigned counsel was unavailable due to administrative errors.

The applicant opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that administrative errors and counsel unavailability do not constitute extraordinary circumstances under the Practice Direction, especially given the length of time until the hearing which allowed for reassignment of the file.

The respondents requested that the human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability, place of origin, and ethnic origin be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that WSIB decisions regarding loss of earnings benefits appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The applicant also suggested deferring the application pending a WSIB proceeding.

The Tribunal found that the WSIB decisions were limited to eligibility for benefits related to workplace injuries, whereas the Code's duty to accommodate applies to all disabilities, not just those arising from workplace injuries.

The Tribunal denied both the request to dismiss and the request to defer.

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.

The applicant failed to respond to the NOID and a subsequent direction sent by email.

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

The applicant requested to reactivate a human rights application that had been deferred on consent pending the completion of a grievance process.

The applicant argued that an internal investigation was complete, but the respondent opposed reactivation because the grievance process itself had not concluded.

The Tribunal denied the request to reactivate, finding no basis to do so under Rule 14.4 until the grievance process is completed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision almost a year after it was issued, citing the return of a potential witness to Canada.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding it was not filed within the required 30-day period and the applicant failed to establish any of the criteria under Rule 26 for reconsideration, including failing to identify what evidence the witness would provide to support the allegations of discrimination or reprisal.

The applicant, a patient in a secure forensic unit, filed multiple human rights applications alleging discrimination.

During a telephone hearing to address specific allegations, including a claim that a doctor discriminatorily greeted him with 'hello ladies', the applicant engaged in highly disruptive, abusive, and disrespectful behaviour, repeatedly yelling at the adjudicator.

The Tribunal found the doctor's comment did not constitute discrimination.

Furthermore, due to the applicant's refusal to comply with directions and his abusive conduct, the Tribunal dismissed the remaining applications as an abuse of process, finding it impossible to conduct a fair hearing.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in housing based on receipt of public assistance.

The personal respondent failed to file a Response despite receiving notice and a warning from the Tribunal.

Pursuant to Rule 5.5 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal ordered that the personal respondent is deemed to have accepted all allegations in the application and waived all rights to further notice or participation in the proceedings.

The respondent requested an order dismissing the human rights application as an abuse of process, alleging the self-represented applicant engaged in harassing conduct towards a former personal respondent at a public swearing-in ceremony.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss, finding that it lacks general injunctive powers to restrain conduct unconnected to the Tribunal's process.

However, the Tribunal ordered the applicant to refrain from seeking a summons for the former personal respondent, as the respondent's counsel provided an undertaking to ensure the witness's attendance at the hearing.

The applicant failed to comply with Rule 16.1 of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario's Rules of Procedure regarding pre-hearing disclosure.

A Case Assessment Direction warned the applicant that failure to provide the required documents and witness information by the specified deadline could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant did not contact the Tribunal or provide the materials by the deadline.

Consequently, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant in a human rights application alleging age discrimination in employment requested to add an individual as a respondent.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant's bare allegation of harassment could not possibly lead to a finding that the proposed respondent discriminated against the applicant because of age.