HRTO 2015

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that deemed her human rights application abandoned after she missed a deadline to submit an Employment Standards Act decision.

The applicant provided medical evidence indicating she suffered from a concussion and kidney infections, which prevented her from meeting the deadline.

The Tribunal found the medical evidence sufficiently compelling to justify the delay and noted the respondent would not suffer substantial prejudice.

The request for reconsideration was granted, the dismissal was set aside, and the application was reactivated.

The applicant filed an application alleging a breach of settlement regarding the payment of general damages without tax withholding.

A hearing was scheduled, and notice was delivered to the applicant.

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

The Tribunal dismissed the application, deeming it abandoned due to the applicant's failure to attend.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of marital status after his driver's licence was suspended for child support arrears and he was subsequently charged with driving with a suspended licence.

The Tribunal dismissed the Application against the Provincial Prosecutor/Crown Attorney's Office on the basis of prosecutorial immunity.

The Tribunal also granted the respondent's Request for Summary Hearing to determine whether the remainder of the Application has no reasonable prospect of success or is an abuse of process.

The respondents in a human rights application filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking the production of the applicant's airline tickets and travel documents.

The applicant had been suspended for refusing to provide these documents to his employer to support his claim that he changed his flight due to illness.

The Tribunal found that the requested documents were arguably relevant to the respondents' defence regarding the reasonableness of the suspension.

The applicant was ordered to produce the documents within 7 days.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability after his employment was terminated for cause.

The respondent requested dismissal of the application because the applicant had signed a full and final release in exchange for a settlement package.

The Tribunal found that the applicant understood the release, received sufficient consideration, and was not under duress when he signed it.

The Tribunal concluded that allowing the application to proceed would be an abuse of process and dismissed the application.

The applicant alleged discrimination and harassment in housing based on his use of medical marijuana.

The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and determined that the application could not be dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal directed that the application continue to be processed and scheduled a one-day merits hearing.

The applicant requested reconsideration of an interim decision that dismissed his human rights application for abandonment after he failed to file a response to a request to dismiss.

The Tribunal found that due to an administrative error, the applicant did not receive the email advising him of the extended deadline to file his response.

The Tribunal granted the reconsideration request, finding the applicant was entitled to notice but did not receive it through no fault of his own.

The applicant requested to re-activate his human rights application following the completion of an Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) proceeding.

The respondent opposed, arguing the application was untimely, dealt with by the OLRB, and barred by a signed release.

The Tribunal granted the request to re-activate the application but directed that a preliminary hearing be held to determine whether the application should be dismissed on the grounds raised by the respondent.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on place of origin and citizenship more than one year after the alleged incident.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed for delay.

The applicant claimed she was unaware of the Tribunal until shortly before filing.

The Tribunal found that ignorance of the law without a reasonable explanation for failing to make inquiries does not constitute good faith.

The application was dismissed as untimely.

The applicant, a former student expelled from the respondent university's Social Work Program, brought an application alleging discrimination.

In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed several procedural requests by the applicant.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request to amend his remedies on consent, but dismissed his requests for production of privileged documents and police reports, requests to add an admissions clerk and the respondents' counsel as individual respondents, requests for Tribunal-ordered inquiries into the university's operations, and requests for the contact information of other students.

The Tribunal found that the requested documents were either privileged or not in the respondents' control, the proposed respondents were not necessary parties, the requested inquiries were outside the scope of the proceeding, and the privacy interests of other students outweighed the limited probative value of their potential evidence.

The applicant, a school bus driver employed by the respondent First Nation, filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination.

The respondent requested deferral pending related federal proceedings, and the Tribunal raised the issue of whether the matter fell under federal or provincial jurisdiction.

The Tribunal declined to defer the application, noting the federal proceedings were on hold or conditional.

Applying the functional test, the Tribunal found that the respondent's provision of school bus services to provincial high schools was a provincial undertaking, not integral to any federal undertaking, and therefore fell under provincial jurisdiction.

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

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled mediation session and subsequently failed to respond to a Tribunal direction inquiring about her intentions with respect to the application.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

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

The Tribunal previously ordered the applicant to provide further particulars of his allegations.

The applicant failed to meet the deadline but requested an extension due to medical reasons, later providing a medical note indicating he was cleared to use his computer.

The Tribunal granted the extension of time, ordering the applicant to provide the required particulars by a new deadline, failing which the application may be dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant requested reconsideration of an interim decision that dismissed his claim of discrimination on the basis of disability for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant argued that the respondent's illegal termination caused him to develop panic attacks and chronic anxiety.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant was attempting to re-argue a position already considered, and reiterated that post-employment disability cannot form the basis of a discrimination claim regarding the termination itself.

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, directing the applicant to respond.

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

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

The applicant filed an application alleging age discrimination in employment after she was not hired by the respondent following a job interview.

The Tribunal's notice to the respondent was returned as undeliverable, as the respondent appeared to have closed its Canadian business operations.

When the applicant failed to respond to the Tribunal's request for submissions on how to proceed, the Tribunal deemed the application withdrawn and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to services by the Ontario Provincial Police, several law firms, and Legal Aid Ontario on the basis of place of origin, family status, marital status, age, and reprisal.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's allegations were based on mere speculation and failed to establish a link between the respondents' conduct and any protected ground under the Code.

The application was dismissed in its entirety for having no reasonable prospect of success, lack of jurisdiction, and delay.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of sex, claiming that the individual respondents engaged in inappropriate sexualized behaviour, including making references to genitalia, exposing genitalia, and making suggestive jokes.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence credible and corroborated by an independent witness.

The Tribunal concluded that the respondents' conduct sexualized the workplace and created a poisoned work environment.

The respondents were ordered jointly and severally to pay $5,000 in compensation for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

The applicant filed two human rights applications against the respondent, with the second alleging reprisal for filing the first.

The respondent requested in its response that the applications be consolidated due to overlapping facts and parties.

The applicant did not respond to the request.

The Tribunal found it appropriate to consolidate the applications given the overlap of facts and legal issues, and set deadlines for disclosure and filing of witness statements.

The respondent in a human rights application filed a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking the names and addresses of the applicant's spouse and a relative/friend who were present at a specific meeting.

The Tribunal denied the request as premature, noting that under Rule 17 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure, the parties were not yet required to file their witness information and statements.

The Tribunal also reminded the applicant of the proper procedure for amending her application to include new Code grounds.