HRTO 2015

The applicant requested to re-activate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the completion of a proceeding at the Social Benefits Tribunal (SBT).

The applicant provided a letter stating she did not intend to raise a Code challenge at the SBT, but the respondent's counsel advised that the applicant's SBT counsel intended to challenge the 'spouse' provisions of the Ontario Disability Support Program Act under the Code.

The Tribunal found that material facts had not changed and that deferral remained appropriate to avoid concurrent proceedings and inconsistent decisions.

The request to re-activate was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability after being denied a Northern Health Travel Grant.

The Tribunal directed a preliminary hearing to determine whether the application should be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, as the respondent argued that a 2011 settlement and release from a previous application barred the current claim.

The Tribunal held that the release language only applied to the specific events and allegations of the 2010 application and did not preclude future claims arising from subsequent grant denials.

The request to dismiss the application was denied, and the matter was allowed to proceed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by her former elementary school and the school board, which she attended in the 1960s.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the application was filed decades late and failed to identify specific acts of discrimination.

The applicant failed to provide a good faith reason for the delay or articulate the alleged discrimination.

The application was dismissed as being outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

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

The Tribunal scheduled a mediation session, which the applicant failed to attend without explanation.

The Tribunal subsequently directed the applicant to advise of his intentions regarding the application, warning that failure to respond could result in the application being deemed abandoned.

The applicant did not respond to the Tribunal's correspondence.

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

The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision dismissing her human rights application as abandoned after she failed to attend an in-person hearing.

The applicant claimed she did not receive fair notice of the hearing date due to confusing communications from the Tribunal that focused on a separate teleconference hearing.

The Tribunal found that the notice was confusing and that the applicant did not receive effective notice of the in-person hearing.

The request for reconsideration was allowed for procedural fairness reasons.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in services under section 34 of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued a Case Assessment Direction requiring the applicant to file a Reply and respond to a request for a summary hearing within 14 days, warning that failure to do so could result in dismissal for abandonment.

The applicant failed to file the Reply within the specified time.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination in employment based on creed and sex.

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

The applicant failed to provide any evidence linking the alleged adverse treatment to his creed or sex.

Furthermore, his pleadings suggested another female employee was also subjected to similar treatment, undermining his claim of sex discrimination.

The Tribunal found the allegations were pure speculation and dismissed the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant requested the removal of the respondent's counsel, alleging a conflict of interest because she had previously retained a different lawyer at the same law firm for an unrelated employment matter.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant failed to establish that the current matter was related to the prior matter or that the law firm possessed relevant confidential information that could prejudice her in the current proceeding.

The applicant requested that the Tribunal anonymize a previously issued decision dismissing her application, citing the need to protect her privacy, dignity, and sensitive medical history.

The respondents did not oppose the request.

Treating the request as a Request for Reconsideration under the Tribunal's Rules, the adjudicator granted the request, noting that failing to anonymize the decision would defeat the purpose of a previously anonymized grievance arbitration decision involving the applicant.

In an interim decision regarding a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability in teacher placements, the Tribunal addressed preliminary issues in writing.

The Tribunal restricted the intervenor union's participation to matters affecting its members' interests.

The Tribunal also ordered both the respondent school board and the intervenor to produce all arguably relevant documents pertaining to the applicant's assignments for the 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 school years, noting that privacy concerns regarding third-party names in staffing documents are adequately protected by the implied undertaking rule in Rule 3.3.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination.

Before filing his Reply, the applicant requested an order for particulars and early production of documents from the respondent.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that pleadings should be completed before raising preliminary matters and that no exceptional circumstances justified early document production prior to the issuance of a Notice of Hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, citing a history of general mistreatment, inaccurate decisions, and missing cheques dating back to 1976.

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

After reviewing the applicant's submissions, the Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it plain and obvious that the allegations of general unfairness had no connection to any protected ground under the Code.

The applicant, a person with a disability, alleged discrimination with respect to housing because the respondent's subsidized housing program required her to move to a new unit, which she claimed she could not do due to her disability.

The respondent sought to dismiss the application at a preliminary hearing on the grounds of timeliness and having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found the application was filed in time, as a 2014 request for an 'in situ' subsidy constituted a new incident.

The Tribunal also declined to dismiss the application for no reasonable prospect of success, finding an arguable case of constructive discrimination under section 11 of the Human Rights Code.

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

Subsequently, the applicant was terminated and commenced a civil action seeking damages for wrongful dismissal, including general damages under the Human Rights Code.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal dismiss the application under section 34(11) of the Code.

The Tribunal found that the civil claim encompassed the same factual allegations of harassment and failure to accommodate as the application, and sought Code remedies.

As section 34(11) is mandatory, the Tribunal dismissed the application to prevent duplicative litigation.

The applicant filed a human rights complaint against the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, alleging that a Vice-Chair failed to accommodate her cognitive disability during a mediation session that resulted in a settlement agreement.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the mediator's actions were integral to the dispute resolution process and were therefore protected by the doctrine of judicial immunity.

The applicant alleged that the WSIB discriminated against him and failed to accommodate his psychological disability in its communications and benefit entitlement decisions.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations relating to benefit entitlement, commutation of benefits, and delayed payments, finding they were either within the exclusive jurisdiction of the WSIB or had no reasonable prospect of success.

However, the Tribunal declined to dismiss the allegation that the WSIB failed to accommodate the applicant's disability in the manner it communicated with him, directing that this issue proceed to a further case conference.

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

The respondent sought early dismissal due to delay.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to respond to the dismissal issue by a specified date, warning that failure to do so could result in the application being dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant failed to respond.

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

The respondent requested that the application be reactivated following the conclusion of a related proceeding before the Ontario Court of Appeal.

The Tribunal ordered the application reactivated and directed the Registrar to reschedule the preliminary hearing.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code against the Canadian Border Services Agency.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the matter appeared to be outside its jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice by the required deadline.

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

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, ethnic origin, and age after a restaurant refused to serve him a third beer.

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

The applicant requested an adjournment to obtain legal counsel, which was denied as it was not made in a timely manner and did not constitute an extraordinary circumstance.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant provided no evidence linking the denial of service to any prohibited ground under the Human Rights Code.