HRTO 2015

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

The applicant submitted that she did not receive the Tribunal's notice requiring her to file submissions.

Relying on recent Divisional Court jurisprudence, the Tribunal accepted the applicant's assertion that she did not receive the notice, granted the request for reconsideration, and set aside the previous decision.

The respondent in a human rights application requested early production of documents from the applicant's Occupational Health, Safety and Emergency Preparedness Department file, and an extension of time to file its Response.

The Tribunal denied the request for early production, finding no exceptional circumstances that would prevent the respondent from filing its Response without the documents, as the application primarily concerned managerial conduct rather than workplace accommodation.

The respondent was granted an extension of time to file its Response.

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

The respondents brought a Request for an Order During Proceedings seeking access to the applicant's medical documents held by the school board's Disability Management department, arguing they could not meaningfully respond without them.

The Tribunal granted the request, ordering the applicant to sign a consent form waiving confidentiality and granting the respondents an extension of time to file their Response until 35 days after the consent form is provided.

The applicant alleged reprisal and discrimination based on disability against the respondent.

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

The applicant claimed that a support services worker provided incorrect information about her disability to a Crown Attorney.

The Tribunal found no evidence that the alleged misinformation was provided due to discrimination or prejudice.

The Tribunal also found no evidence of reprisal under section 8 of the Human Rights Code.

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

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

The respondent filed a response requesting early dismissal on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to file written submissions in response to the request for early dismissal and warned that failure to do so could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to file submissions by the deadline.

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

The respondent requested the dismissal of a human rights application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the substance of the application had been appropriately dealt with in a WSIB proceeding.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the WSIB did not apply the Code or provide human rights remedies, making it unfair to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal also granted the applicant's request to amend the application to seek lost wages, but denied his request for an interim remedy of weekly earnings.

The respondent's request for early document disclosure was denied as premature.

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

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

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice by the deadline.

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

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found the respondent had not discriminated against him on the basis of disability.

The applicant relied on Rule 26.5(c) and (d) of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant failed to establish any of the threshold criteria justifying reconsideration, did not point to any conflicting case law or procedure, and merely attempted to re-argue his case regarding delay.

The applicant, a Muslim woman, alleged that the respondent home builder discriminated against her based on creed and sex by failing to provide advance notice before sending workers to repair the exterior of her home.

She claimed that being seen by workers through her windows without her hair covered or while inappropriately attired violated her religious beliefs.

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

The Tribunal concluded that the respondent did not know, and could not reasonably have known, of the applicant's creed-based need for advance notice.

The applicant's reprisal claim was also dismissed as her complaints to Tarion were not protected activities under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on sex arising from the respondents' gender verification and anti-doping policies.

The foreign respondents, the Union Cycliste Internationale and the International Olympic Committee, argued that they were not validly served because the Application was not served in accordance with the Hague Service Convention.

The Tribunal held that Ontario law does not require compliance with the Hague Service Convention in Tribunal proceedings, and that the respondents had received effective legal notice through the Tribunal's regular methods of transmission.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race.

The respondent failed to file a Response despite receiving a Notice of Application and a subsequent warning letter from the Tribunal.

Applying Rule 5.5 of the Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal ordered that the respondent is deemed to have accepted all allegations in the Application and waived all rights to notice or participation in the proceedings.

A case management conference call was scheduled to determine next steps.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for August 27, 2015, because its previous representative unexpectedly terminated the retainer one week before the hearing.

The applicant did not oppose the adjournment but requested it be peremptory.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding no basis to make it peremptory, and directed the Registrar to reschedule the hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application nearly three years after the last alleged incident of discrimination, which related to his termination and a subsequent union grievance settlement.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application appeared to be outside the one-year limitation period under section 34(1) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay.

The Tribunal found that the delay was not incurred in good faith and dismissed the application on a preliminary basis.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on race and ethnic origin following his termination for eating unauthorized food during his shift.

The respondent sought to dismiss the application under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter was appropriately dealt with through the grievance process, which ended when the union decided not to proceed to arbitration after Step 2.

The Tribunal denied the request, holding that a grievance process prior to arbitration before a neutral third party does not constitute a 'proceeding' under s. 45.1.

The Tribunal also granted the applicant's request to amend his application to clarify his allegations and seek monetary compensation, finding no significant prejudice to the respondent.

The respondent requested an order requiring the applicant to comply with document disclosure rules and file a Reply.

The Tribunal noted the applicant had filed materials intended as a Reply but missed the deadline for the formal form.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to confirm her Reply materials and to disclose all relevant documents within 14 days, warning that failure to comply could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision dismissing her human rights application, which alleged that a physician was reprising against her through telepathic stalking or cyberstalking after she filed a complaint with the College of Physicians and Surgeons.

The Tribunal denied the request for reconsideration, finding that the applicant had not provided any new facts or evidence that could potentially be determinative of the case or establish that the physician was retaliating against her.

The respondents requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing on consent, citing ongoing settlement discussions, the likelihood that the hearing would exceed the scheduled one day, and witness unavailability.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario denied the request, noting its Practice Direction requires extraordinary circumstances for late adjournments.

The Tribunal held that settlement discussions and scheduling preferences do not constitute sufficient reasons to vacate a hearing date and waste allocated public resources.

The applicant filed an application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code alleging discrimination with respect to goods and services.

The respondents sought early dismissal on the basis that a full and final release had been signed.

After the applicant's representative withdrew, the Tribunal directed the applicant to file a Reply to the Response.

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's correspondence or the Case Assessment Direction.

Consequently, the Tribunal found the application to be abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant requested that her name be anonymized in the style of cause due to the highly sensitive health information likely to be disclosed in the proceeding.

The respondent did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding that anonymization was appropriate given the potential stigma associated with the applicant's mental disabilities.

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

The respondents requested a summary hearing.

The applicant sought an interim order for early production of his employment file to clarify his employment status before filing a Reply and Response to the summary hearing request.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that early production was not necessary because the respondents had already disclosed the applicant's consulting contract and invoices, which provided the information sought.