HRTO 2015

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to services and employment because of disability.

The Tribunal scheduled a summary hearing by teleconference.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing and provided no explanation for her absence.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination in the denial of OHIP coverage and requested to expedite the proceeding.

The respondent requested to remove the Minister of Health and Long Term Care as a personal respondent.

The Tribunal granted the respondent's request, finding no compelling reason to name the Minister personally, as the claim related to OHIP eligibility criteria and raised no Code grounds against the Minister individually.

The Tribunal also agreed to schedule mediation on an expedited basis.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and harassment by the respondents.

The respondents requested dismissal of the application under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the applicant had commenced a civil action seeking remedies for the same alleged infringements.

The Tribunal found that the civil action arose from the same facts and sought remedies for the same alleged Code violations.

As section 34(11) is intended to prevent duplicative litigation, the Tribunal concluded it had no jurisdiction and dismissed the application.

The applicant, an elementary school teacher, alleged discrimination based on race after being accused of workplace violence.

He filed a Request for a Tribunal-Ordered Inquiry to obtain evidence of an alleged conspiracy against him.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that a Tribunal-Ordered Inquiry is not a substitute for the usual document production process and that much of the requested information went beyond the scope of the narrowed application.

The applicant sought to re-activate her deferred human rights application after withdrawing her union grievance.

The respondent school board opposed the request because the applicant had filed a duty of fair representation complaint against her union with the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB).

The Tribunal found that the OLRB complaint and the human rights application were virtually identical and sought overlapping remedies.

To avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions, the Tribunal denied the request and ordered that the application remain deferred pending the conclusion of the OLRB proceeding.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination and reprisal based on disability against a paralegal firm and its subcontractor, who were retained by his landlord for eviction proceedings.

The respondents allegedly disclosed the applicant's medical marijuana use to neighbours, photographed his plants, and reported him to the police.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had no reasonable prospect of success, particularly concerning whether the respondents' actions as legal representatives fell under the Code's accommodation provisions.

The Tribunal concluded the application could not be dismissed at this preliminary stage and directed the matter to continue.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability against Canadian Blood Services.

The Tribunal raised the issue of whether it had jurisdiction over the matter, given that the respondent receives federal funding and some of its services are federally regulated.

Both parties submitted that the Tribunal had jurisdiction because the applicant's employment as a Supply Technician falls under provincial labour relations.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the essential operational nature of the applicant's work was provincially regulated, and confirmed its jurisdiction to hear the application.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging failure to accommodate his disability and sought an interim remedy to be reinstated to his position pending the final determination of the application.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant failed to meet the significant onus of establishing that the balance of harm or convenience favoured granting the interim remedy, as any financial losses could be compensated if a Code violation was ultimately found.

The applicant died in an accident while her human rights application was pending.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction stating that the application would be deemed abandoned if no communication was received from the applicant's estate by a specified date.

Having received no further communication, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his application alleging age discrimination by Hockey Canada regarding a flat-rate insurance fee for minor hockey players.

The applicant argued the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence and Tribunal procedure.

The Tribunal found no new facts, no conflict with jurisprudence or procedure, and no other factors outweighing the public interest in finality.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and age following the termination of her employment.

The respondent argued the application was filed outside the one-year limitation period under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant contended that the respondent's subsequent failure to comply with a WSIB order to re-employ her constituted a continuing act of discrimination.

The Tribunal found that the WSIB's decision and the respondent's subsequent refusal to re-employ the applicant did not constitute new acts of discrimination.

As the last incident of alleged discrimination was the termination of employment, which occurred more than a year before the application was filed, the application was dismissed as out of time.

The respondents requested that the application alleging sexual harassment and solicitation be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that a police investigation into the allegations, which resulted in no criminal charges, constituted another proceeding that appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal held that a police investigation is not a 'proceeding' within the meaning of section 45.1, as it does not involve the same parties, lacks a trial or opportunity to examine witnesses, and cannot provide human rights remedies.

The request to dismiss the application was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application making allegations of differential treatment based on ethnic background.

A preliminary hearing was scheduled but cancelled after the respondents provided a Statement of Claim filed by the applicant in the Superior Court of Justice making the same allegations.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to make written submissions on whether the application should be dismissed under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant failed to respond.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned and, alternatively, under section 34(11) because the civil action raised the same issues in substance.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Code, arguing that a prior WSIB Appeals Resolution Officer decision appropriately dealt with the substance of the application.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the WSIB decision was limited to workplace injuries and did not address the applicant's non-work-related disabilities or the full scope of the duty to accommodate.

The Tribunal granted the respondent's request to remove the personal respondent, as the corporate respondent was liable for his conduct and there was no compelling reason to keep him as a party.

The applicant filed an application alleging that the respondents breached the Minutes of Settlement resolving a human rights complaint.

The respondents failed to attend the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the respondents breached the settlement by failing to pay the agreed $1,000 and failing to develop an office protocol for assessing the risk of HIV and Hepatitis C transmission.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to pay the $1,000 with interest and to develop and distribute the required protocol, but declined to award additional damages for the breach itself.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal dismiss the applicant's human rights application under s. 45.1 of the Code and for mootness.

The Tribunal denied the s. 45.1 request because the applicant was not a party to the prior proceedings relied upon by the respondents.

The Tribunal also denied the mootness request, finding that a live issue of discrimination remained regarding the assessment of the applicant's eligibility for Wheel-Trans services.

The respondents' alternative request to strike certain allegations was deferred to the adjudicator assigned to hear the merits.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment because of age.

The Tribunal had previously deferred the application pending the completion of a related proceeding before the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

After the applicant and his counsel failed to respond to the Tribunal's requests for a status update by the specified deadline, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application, but the Tribunal's correspondence to the respondent was returned as undeliverable.

The Tribunal contacted the applicant for an updated address and warned that failure to respond would result in the application being closed as abandoned.

The applicant did not respond, and the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The respondents requested a summary hearing, the removal of two personal respondents, and the dismissal of certain allegations for delay.

The Tribunal denied the request for a summary hearing and declined to remove the school principal as a personal respondent at this stage.

The Tribunal agreed to remove the Director of Education, finding she was intended only as a contact person.

Finally, the Tribunal dismissed an allegation regarding a 2012 racial slur for delay, as it occurred more than one year before the application was filed and the applicant provided no explanation for the delay.

The respondents requested the production of the applicant's clinical notes from her attending psychologist.

The applicant did not object but had difficulties obtaining the records as the psychologist was on pregnancy leave and out of the country.

The Tribunal ordered the psychologist and her clinic to produce the 2014 clinical notes to the applicant's counsel, who would then provide a redacted copy to the respondents' counsel.