HRTO 2015

The applicant in a human rights proceeding against her condominium corporation filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking the production of various documents and permission to add three new witnesses.

The Tribunal denied the production requests, finding that the requested board minutes, reserve fund report, and electrical safety correspondence were either not requested in a timely manner or lacked arguable relevance to the issues in dispute, particularly the accommodation of the applicant's mobility scooter.

The request to add witnesses was also denied as the proposed witnesses lacked relevant information.

The Tribunal further directed that the respondents' motion to dismiss for no reasonable prospect of success would be heard after the close of the applicant's evidence.

The applicant, a commercial condominium owner, alleged discrimination on the basis of race, claiming the condominium board gave preferential treatment to Chinese business owners regarding the placement of an ATM and the leasing of a unit to a competitor.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed at a summary hearing for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that, accepting the applicant's allegations as true, the application had a reasonable prospect of success and allowed it to proceed.

The Tribunal also granted the applicant's request to amend his application to include a recent allegation.

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

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the WSIB proceeding concerned the cause of the applicant's injury, whereas the human rights application concerned the respondent's duty to accommodate the applicant's disability.

As the duty to accommodate applies regardless of the cause of the disability, the facts and issues did not overlap sufficiently to warrant deferral.

The applicant filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to amend his human rights application, increase the remedy requested, and add The Jim Pattison Group as a respondent.

The respondents consented to the amendment of the application but opposed the amendment to the remedy and the addition of the new respondent.

The Tribunal applied the Smyth test and granted the request to add the respondent, noting that the exact relationship between the respondents should be determined at the hearing.

The Tribunal also granted the request to amend the remedy sought, finding no prejudice given the early stage of the proceedings.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of race, colour, ethnicity, place of origin, and ethnic origin after he was denied a building operator position.

The respondent brought a request for a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had no reasonable prospect of proving his claims, as he relied solely on his own subjective beliefs and speculation without any objective evidence linking the respondent's actions to a protected ground.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed multiple applications alleging discrimination in services and housing on the basis of race, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin, disability, creed, receipt of public assistance, record of offences, and reprisal.

The allegations stemmed from disputes with neighbours over property use, alleged police inaction, and municipal by-law enforcement.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the applications, finding that the applicant failed to provide any evidence linking the respondents' actions to a prohibited ground of discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant sought to re-activate a human rights application alleging failure to accommodate a disability, which had been deferred pending a union grievance.

The grievance arbitration had previously dismissed the accommodation claim, finding the employer incapable of accommodating the applicant.

The Tribunal dismissed the application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, finding that the substance of the application was identical to the grievance and had been appropriately dealt with by the arbitrator.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding alleging disability discrimination requested an order for the production of clinical notes and records from a third-party physician who had examined him on behalf of the respondent.

The respondent claimed the physician made no notes, but the applicant pointed to statutory record-keeping obligations.

The Tribunal found the records arguably relevant and ordered the third-party physician to produce the records or confirm in writing that none exist.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding against the Toronto Police Services Board brought interim requests to add Toronto Paramedic Services as a respondent, to compel the production of certain police officers' notes, and to be issued 10 summonses to witness.

The Tribunal denied the request to add a party due to its lateness and lack of arguable merit.

The request for document production was denied as the notes were not arguably relevant to the discrimination allegations.

The request for summonses was deferred to be addressed at the upcoming hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, sex, and reprisal.

She claimed she was sexually harassed by a co-worker years prior, subjected to a toxic work environment, and reprised against when the respondent required her to pay rent for her employer-provided apartment while on medical leave.

The Tribunal dismissed the sexual harassment allegations for delay, finding no series of incidents and no good faith explanation for the delay.

After hearing the applicant's evidence, the Tribunal dismissed the remaining allegations, finding that the work environment complaints were not linked to any Code grounds and that the reprisal claim had no reasonable prospect of success because the applicant's underlying complaints did not relate to Code rights.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination based on family status and sex regarding a medical service.

Both parties requested anonymization of their names due to the sensitive nature of the medical service.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to use initials, finding it appropriate due to potential stigma.

However, the Tribunal denied the respondent hospital's request for anonymization, noting that the hospital publicly advertises the medical services at issue and no individual clinicians were named as respondents.

The applicant sought to reactivate a human rights application that had been deferred pending the outcome of a civil proceeding.

The civil claim was administratively dismissed as abandoned in February 2014, but the applicant did not file a request to reactivate the Tribunal application until February 2015, well beyond the 60-day limit under Rule 14.4.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide a good reason for the nine-month delay, noting inconsistencies in his explanations and a lack of diligence in ascertaining the status of his civil claim.

The request to reactivate was denied and the application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability and citizenship after the Licence Appeal Tribunal posted a decision regarding his spouse's driver's license suspension online in 2005.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application was filed almost 10 years after the incident.

The applicant argued the delay was justified because the decision remained online indefinitely and he was unaware of his human rights options.

The Tribunal found the ongoing online presence did not constitute a continuing incident and the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for not pursuing his rights in a timely manner.

The application was dismissed for delay.

The applicant, who self-identified as Hispanic/Latina, alleged discrimination on the basis of ethnic origin after the respondent employer implemented a rule requiring employees to speak only French in the workplace, including during unpaid breaks.

The respondent operated a care home for elderly francophone nuns.

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

The Tribunal found that language is not a protected ground under the Code, and the applicant failed to establish that the rule was used as a proxy for discrimination based on ethnic origin.

Most of the allegations were dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success, except for the allegation that the applicant was required to leave the premises to make telephone calls to her family, which was allowed to proceed to a full hearing.

The respondents requested an order removing two personal respondents as parties and an order for particulars regarding various allegations in the human rights application.

The applicant consented to the removal of the two personal respondents.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide particulars for several general allegations of discrimination and harassment, finding that the respondents were entitled to further details to fully understand the allegations and prepare their case.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application.

The original application was dismissed because the substance of the application had been appropriately dealt with through a grievance settlement and consent order.

The applicant argued there were new facts or evidence regarding his substance abuse and witnesses to the settlement.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant's history of substance abuse was never disputed and the new evidence could have been obtained earlier and was not determinative of the case.

The applicant filed a human rights application against a condominium property manager regarding a dispute over an outside wall repair.

The Tribunal requested clarification on how the allegations related to the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the dispute did not raise any allegations of discrimination covered by the Code and that an earlier potentially Code-related episode was out of time.

The applicant filed a human rights application which was deferred pending the conclusion of an ongoing Employment Standards proceeding.

The Tribunal subsequently requested an update on the status of the parallel proceeding and warned that failure to respond could result in dismissal for abandonment.

After the applicant and her representative failed to respond to multiple communications, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

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

She failed to attend a scheduled mediation session and did not communicate with the Tribunal to explain her absence.

The Tribunal sent a letter warning that failure to respond within ten days could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant did not respond.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging she was terminated from her employment as a nanny because of her pregnancy.

She had previously filed an Employment Standards claim regarding the same termination, which resulted in an award for lost wages and general damages.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that the Employment Standards proceeding appropriately dealt with the substance of the application and that it would not be unfair to dismiss the application.

The application was dismissed to avoid relitigation of essentially the same dispute.