HRTO 2015

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and reprisal in employment more than one year after the last alleged incident.

The applicant argued the delay was justified because she was waiting for her union to negotiate a settlement with her employer.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that waiting for another process to conclude does not constitute a good faith explanation for delay under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The respondent brought a Request for Order During Proceeding seeking to remove the individual manager as a personal respondent and to dismiss parts of the Application for delay.

The Tribunal granted the request to remove the personal respondent, finding that the manager was acting in the course of her employment implementing corporate policy and it was not necessary to involve her as a party for a fair resolution.

The Tribunal deferred the issue of delay to the hearing adjudicator, as it was unclear whether the earlier incidents were background or separate untimely allegations.

The applicant requested that a clinical social worker be qualified as an expert witness in quantitative and qualitative data analysis to provide an opinion on data disclosed by the respondents.

The respondents objected, arguing the proposed witness lacked the necessary scientific research background and impartiality.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the proposed witness had previously acted as an advocate for the applicant, had an ongoing relationship with the applicant's family, and lacked the independence and impartiality required of an expert witness.

The applicant, who had recently reached the age of majority, requested an order to revert to being identified by his initials and to reinstate his mother as his litigation guardian.

The applicant's counsel subsequently withdrew the request for a litigation guardian, confirming the applicant's capacity to participate.

The Tribunal denied the request for anonymization, finding that the applicant's identification as an exceptional student did not constitute highly sensitive or intimate personal information that would justify the extraordinary measure of a publication ban overriding the open hearing principle.

The applicant, who briefly held paid and volunteer positions with the respondent food cooperative, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability when the respondent did not return him to his former job after wrist surgery.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's paid positions were temporary and had either expired or been eliminated.

Furthermore, the applicant had voluntarily resigned from his duties and the relationship had broken down due to mutual mistrust.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking to amend her human rights Application alleging discrimination based on sex (pregnancy).

The requested amendment was in the nature of a Reply to the respondent's Response.

The respondent did not object to the request.

Considering the nature of the amendment, the lack of prejudice, and the absence of objection, the Tribunal granted the request to amend the Application.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) on the basis that the application appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the NOID by the extended deadline.

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

The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination based on disability.

The Tribunal raised a preliminary issue regarding whether the respondent, a television broadcasting enterprise, falls under federal rather than provincial jurisdiction.

Applying the 'plain and obvious' test, the Tribunal found that the nature of the respondent's business and the applicant's duties were in dispute, and therefore it was not plain and obvious that the matter fell outside its jurisdiction.

The Tribunal directed that processing of the application continue.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant's request to amend the application to add place of origin and citizenship as prohibited grounds, finding no proper basis for the amendment.

The applicant's human rights application was initially dismissed for delay.

The Tribunal granted reconsideration to determine if the delay was in good faith, based on the applicant's claim that she received incorrect legal advice from the Human Rights Legal Support Centre.

At the preliminary hearing, the applicant did not attend, and her counsel stated no evidence from the Centre would be called.

The Tribunal adjourned the hearing and ordered the applicant to testify at a resumed hearing as to why an adverse inference should not be drawn.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination based on disability more than one year after the alleged incident.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the application for delay and requested submissions.

The applicant failed to provide submissions by the deadline.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability regarding the use of the Glasgow Coma Scale to assess his injuries following a 1997 motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss as the application was filed 17 years after the incident.

The applicant argued the delay was due to his ongoing pursuit of Statutory Accident Benefits, which settled in 2014.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it was out of time and that the pursuit of other legal proceedings does not constitute a good faith explanation for delay under section 34(2) of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to reprisal in employment.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the application failed to identify specific acts of discrimination within the meaning of the Human Rights Code.

The applicant was directed to provide written submissions but failed to do so.

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

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 by the revised deadline.

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

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 by the specified deadline.

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

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for delay, as the last alleged incident occurred three years prior to filing.

The applicant argued the limitation period should run from the date an Employment Standards Officer declined to issue an order, but the Tribunal found this did not constitute an act of discrimination.

As the applicant provided no evidence that the delay was incurred in good faith, the application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment more than one year after the last alleged incident.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for delay.

The applicant argued the delay was in good faith because he was waiting for his union to pursue a grievance.

The Tribunal held 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 filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to amend his human rights application to include the grounds of reprisal, marital status, and age, and to seek production of documents.

The respondents did not file a response.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend the application given the early stage of proceedings and lack of objection.

The request for document production was denied as premature, as the time for mandatory disclosure had not yet occurred.

The applicant filed a human rights application over six years after the last alleged incident of discrimination.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for delay.

The applicant argued the delay was incurred in good faith due to ignorance of the filing process, mental health issues, visual impairment, and poor English skills.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay or evidence supporting his claims, noting that ignorance of the means to pursue rights does not constitute good faith.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent college more than one year after the last alleged incident of discrimination.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for delay.

The applicant argued the delay was incurred in good faith due to ignorance of the Tribunal's process, mental health issues, visual impairment, language barriers, and fear of reprisal.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, noting that ignorance of the process and ongoing internal resolution attempts do not justify missing the statutory deadline.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent university five years after the last alleged incident of discrimination.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss for delay.

The applicant argued the delay was in good faith due to ignorance of the filing process, mental health issues, visual impairment, language barriers, and fear of reprisal.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation or medical evidence supporting the five-year delay, and dismissed the application as it lacked jurisdiction to extend the time limit.