HRTO 2015

The applicant alleged racial discrimination regarding services at a gas station.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed several requests.

The Tribunal allowed the applicant's spouse to be added as an applicant, subject to submissions on delay.

The request to add the gas station operator as a respondent was denied due to delay.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to produce a videotape of the incident and records regarding the termination of the gas attendant.

The applicant was ordered to produce employment and health records if she intended to pursue claims for lost wages and health impacts.

The applicant filed a request to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of a parallel civil proceeding in Small Claims Court.

The applicant submitted a court order staying the civil action until she provided certain particulars, arguing this satisfied the requirement.

The Tribunal found that the civil proceeding had not concluded, as the stay order predated the deferral decision and indicated the civil claim was ongoing.

The request to reactivate was dismissed, and the application remained deferred.

The respondent requested an order to dismiss the human rights application under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant had filed an amended Statement of Claim in the Ontario Superior Court seeking damages for the breach of his Code rights arising from the same events.

The Tribunal found that the application was barred because the applicant had elected to seek remedies in a civil proceeding.

The application was dismissed.

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

The Tribunal had deferred the application pending the conclusion of a proceeding at the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

After the applicant failed to respond to multiple Tribunal inquiries regarding the status of the other proceeding, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the application failed to identify any specific acts of discrimination.

The applicant was directed to provide written submissions but failed to respond to the NOID.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the police with respect to services based on race and ethnic origin.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application failed to explain how the alleged mistreatment was connected to a Code ground.

The applicant re-filed the same documents without addressing the Notice.

The Tribunal dismissed the application on a preliminary basis, finding it plain and obvious that the allegations were outside its jurisdiction as they were not connected to any Code grounds.

The applicant father filed human rights applications on behalf of his children regarding the respondent's refusal to provide two health care cards for children residing in two family homes.

The children's mother, an interested party, requested that the father be removed as litigation guardian, alleging a conflict of interest due to his business promoting solutions for two-home families.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the mother failed to establish a clear and demonstrated conflict of interest, as the father's business interests were not contrary to the children's interests in the applications.

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

The respondent failed to file a response, resulting in an interim decision deeming it to have accepted the allegations and waiving its right to participate.

The respondent subsequently filed a response and a request for reconsideration, explaining the delay was due to administrative error and a misunderstanding regarding mediation.

The Tribunal revoked the non-participation order, allowing the respondent to participate, and directed the matter to mediation.

The applicant, a municipal councillor and board member of the respondent corporation, alleged that her right to be free from reprisal was violated when her attendance record was leaked to the press after she filed a human rights application.

The Tribunal found that while the leak was likely intended to embarrass the applicant, there was insufficient evidence to prove that the motivation was to retaliate for her human rights application, given her pre-existing fractious relationship with other board members.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed two human rights applications, one alleging harassment on the basis of sex in the social area of contracts, and a second alleging reprisal resulting from the first application.

The Tribunal considered whether to consolidate the applications under Rule 1.7(d) of its Rules of Procedure.

Applying the factors from Lattey v. Canadian Pacific Railway, the Tribunal found that the applications involved the same parties, overlapping facts, and that consolidation would avoid a multiplicity of proceedings without causing prejudice.

The applications were ordered to be consolidated and heard together.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability against numerous respondents, including government offices and lawyers.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the allegations appeared to fall outside its jurisdiction and lacked connection to Code grounds.

After reviewing the applicant's submissions, the Tribunal dismissed the application against several respondents for whom no specific allegations were made.

The applicant was ordered to provide further details regarding the remaining respondents and to explain any delay in filing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging housing discrimination and reprisal.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred pending the conclusion of an ongoing proceeding before the Landlord and Tenant Board involving the same facts.

The Tribunal granted the deferral to avoid duplication of evidence and the possibility of inconsistent findings of fact and law.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, alleging discrimination after a judge denied her motion.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on the basis that it lacks jurisdiction over courts and tribunals in the execution of their adjudicative duties due to the doctrine of judicial immunity.

The applicant's submissions did not address the jurisdictional issue.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it plain and obvious that the complaint related entirely to judicial activity protected by judicial immunity.

The applicant requested to re-activate his human rights application after it was deferred pending a Social Benefit Tribunal decision.

The respondents requested a summary hearing and the removal of three personal respondents.

The Tribunal granted the request to re-activate the application and directed a summary hearing.

The Tribunal also removed the personal respondents, finding no compelling reason to continue the proceeding against them personally as they were acting within the scope of their employment in administering the Ontario Disability Support Program.

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

A summary hearing was scheduled and notice was provided to the applicant.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing and did not communicate with the Tribunal to explain the absence.

The Tribunal dismissed the application on the basis that the applicant was deemed to have abandoned it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in service by the respondent retail store.

Prior to filing the application, the applicant had commenced a civil action seeking damages for discrimination and false imprisonment, specifically claiming damages under section 46.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide submissions on whether the application was barred by section 34(11) of the Code.

The applicant acknowledged the concurrent proceedings and stated his intention to pursue the civil claim.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it was barred by section 34(11) because the civil proceeding had not been finally determined or withdrawn.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal after the respondent employer refused to allow him to return to work following a WSIB injury.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that a WSIB Re-Employment Case Manager had already dealt with the substance of the application by finding the respondent breached its re-employment obligations.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss, finding that although there was factual overlap, it would be unfair to the applicant to deprive him of the broader remedial authority available under the Code, as the WSIB's remedies were limited to a maximum of one year of partial lost wages.

The respondent in a human rights application requested an order compelling the Toronto Police Services Board to produce video statements of the applicant, respondent, and two witnesses.

The Tribunal found the statements arguably relevant and ordered the police to produce them to the respondent's counsel, who must then share them with the applicant's counsel.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging sex and disability discrimination, sexual solicitation, and reprisal against the respondents.

The individual respondent requested a continued deferral of the application, arguing a related Special Investigations Unit (SIU) investigation was ongoing.

The organizational respondent requested an extension of time to file its response until after its internal investigation concluded.

The Tribunal denied the individual respondent's request as the SIU investigation had concluded.

The Tribunal also denied the organizational respondent's request for a further extension, finding no concurrent proceeding justified a deferral and that it had already had ample time to investigate.

The respondents were ordered to file their responses within 35 days.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the human rights application pending the outcome of the applicant's WSIB appeal regarding traumatic mental stress.

The Tribunal denied the deferral request, finding that the issues before the WSIB (whether the applicant met criteria for compensable traumatic mental stress) did not sufficiently overlap with the human rights issues (whether the respondent failed to accommodate the applicant's disability-related needs and subjected him to discriminatory comments).