HRTO 2015

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination and subsequently requested an interim remedy of $17,000 to support an 'upper class' lifestyle and travel.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant failed to meet the significant onus under Rule 23.2 to establish that the application appeared to have merit, that the balance of harm favoured the remedy, or that it was just and appropriate.

The Tribunal noted that a summary hearing had already been directed because the application appeared to have no reasonable prospect of success, and the requested remedy did not align with the remedial purposes of the Code.

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

The respondent requested the application be dismissed on the basis that the applicant had signed a full and final release, but did not file a copy of the settlement.

The Tribunal sought submissions on whether the settlement should be disclosed.

With the agreement of all parties and the intervenor, the Tribunal ordered the respondent to disclose the settlement agreement for the sole purpose of determining the respondent's dismissal request.

The Tribunal also granted the intervenor's unopposed request to intervene.

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

The Tribunal directed the applicant to respond to the respondent's request to dismiss the application, warning that failure to do so could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond by the extended deadline.

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

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled summary hearing in order to gather medical evidence to support her case.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting that parties are not expected to submit documents or call witnesses at a summary hearing.

The applicant only needs to be prepared to explain what the proposed evidence will be if the application proceeds to a merits hearing.

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.

After the applicant failed to respond to the NOID by the required deadlines, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed three separate human rights applications alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, failure to accommodate, and termination.

The Tribunal issued an interim decision proposing to consolidate the three applications pursuant to Rule 1.7(d) of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, as they arise from the same set of circumstances and involve the same parties.

The Tribunal ordered that the applications will be consolidated unless either party files submissions opposing consolidation within two weeks.

The applicant requested to amend his human rights application to include allegations of ongoing discrimination regarding special education accommodations for the 2014-2015 school year.

The respondent opposed the amendment and requested a deferral pending the conclusion of special education proceedings under the Education Act.

The Tribunal granted the request to amend, finding it timely and preferable to requiring a new application, and denied the deferral request because the special education proceedings had already concluded.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her human rights application as abandoned after she and her representative failed to call into a scheduled summary hearing by teleconference.

The applicant claimed they mistakenly believed the Tribunal would call them.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant's failure was due to her own mistake in reading the Notice of Summary Hearing, the prejudice to the respondent was minimal and the applicant clearly had not abandoned her application.

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

The applicant, a person with a disability who uses a certified service dog, was stopped by a security guard when attempting to enter the respondent's mall.

The guard refused to look at the applicant's service animal certification and required the applicant and his pregnant wife to wait at the entrance for approximately four minutes while the guard went to the security office.

The Tribunal found that the guard's actions constituted a denial of access and discriminated against the applicant with respect to services because of his disability.

The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's claim that the mall's signage indicated an intention to discriminate.

The respondent was ordered to pay $1,000 in compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The applicants requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed their applications following a summary hearing.

The applicants alleged age and family status discrimination by the Children's Aid Society.

The Tribunal found that the applicants failed to meet the threshold criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5, as they merely restated previous arguments, provided no new determinative evidence, and made unsupported allegations of bias against the adjudicator.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant filed human rights applications against the respondents.

The Tribunal scheduled a summary hearing by teleconference to determine whether the applications should be dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant advised the Tribunal he would refuse to participate and failed to attend the scheduled hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the applications as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of race, disability, and sex against his employer and several individual respondents.

The respondents requested the removal of the individual respondents and the dismissal of certain allegations for delay.

The Tribunal declined to strike the older allegations, noting they were plead as context rather than separate breaches.

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal removed all individual respondents except the occupational health physician, finding the corporate respondent would be vicariously liable for the actions of its employees but potentially not for the physician engaged to assess disability benefits.

The applicant alleged that the respondent university discriminated against her on the basis of age, ancestry, place of origin, and ethnic origin when it did not interview her for a tenure-track position in the history of French Canada and Quebec.

The Tribunal found that the majority of the hiring committee reasonably concluded from the applicant's curriculum vitae that she did not possess the required expertise in the specific field.

Although one committee member applied criteria that created a distinction based on Code grounds, this did not disadvantage the applicant because the rest of the committee had already excluded her for non-discriminatory reasons.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to services because of disability against a college and an individual program coordinator.

The respondents requested the removal of the individual as a personal respondent.

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal found that the corporate respondent was prepared to assume liability for the individual's actions, which were taken in her capacity as a program coordinator and professor.

Finding no compelling reason to continue the proceeding against the individual personally and no prejudice to the applicant, the Tribunal ordered her removal as a personal respondent.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, which was deferred pending the resolution of another legal proceeding.

After the other proceeding concluded, the Tribunal directed the applicant to file a Request for an Order During Proceedings to reactivate the application by a specified deadline.

The applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's correspondence.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the human rights application because the applicant had filed a concurrent Employment Standards complaint with the Ministry of Labour.

The applicant opposed deferral, arguing the ESA complaint dealt with wage issues and working conditions, while the human rights application alleged discrimination and harassment.

The Tribunal found that the issues were separate with little potential for conflicting findings of fact or law, and directed that the application continue in the Tribunal's process.

The respondents requested to dismiss or defer the human rights application on the basis that the facts and issues were currently before the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (HPARB).

The Tribunal found that deferral was the most fair, just, and expeditious way of proceeding, as concurrent proceedings dealing with the same issues raise the possibility of inconsistent decisions.

The application was deferred pending the conclusion of the HPARB proceeding.

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

A preliminary hearing was scheduled by conference call to hear submissions on how to proceed.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant had proper notice and dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal directed the parties to exchange documents and witness statements prior to the hearing.

The applicant failed to comply with these directions and a subsequent Case Assessment Direction warning that the application could be dismissed as abandoned.

As the applicant failed to file the required materials or communicate with the Tribunal by the deadline, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed an application under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal directed the parties to exchange and file documents and witness lists pursuant to Rules 16 and 17 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant failed to comply with these directions by the specified deadline.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction warning the applicant that failure to comply by a new deadline could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to file the required materials or communicate with the Tribunal.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.