HRTO 2015

The applicant filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to remove her union, CUPE Local 79, as a respondent.

The union consented.

The Tribunal also considered whether to defer the application pending a grievance process.

Since the applicant declined the union's assistance and no grievance was filed, the Tribunal declined to defer the application.

The union was removed as a respondent but remained an affected party.

The respondents requested an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for December 15 and 16, 2015, due to the medical reasons of their counsel.

The applicant consented to the request.

The Tribunal found that the illness of a representative constituted an exceptional circumstance and granted the adjournment.

The Tribunal also noted that it does not have jurisdiction to award costs under the Human Rights Code, and therefore made no ruling on the agreement between the parties regarding the reimbursement of the applicant's witness expenses by the respondents' counsel.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging employment discrimination based on disability and reprisal.

The respondent requested to add an organizational respondent, which was granted on consent.

The respondent also requested the application be dismissed for delay, as it was filed more than one year after the last alleged incident.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide written submissions explaining whether there were good faith reasons for the delay before deciding on the dismissal request.

The applicant, an inmate, alleged that Legal Aid Ontario discriminated against him and engaged in reprisal by refusing to allow him to change counsel, refusing to issue a new certificate, and refusing to properly reassess his claim.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss.

The applicant withdrew his creed claim and proceeded only on reprisal.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it plain and obvious that it lacked jurisdiction because the applicant failed to explain how the respondent's actions were related to claiming or enforcing a right under the Human Rights Code.

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

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed because the applicant had signed a full and final release upon his termination.

The applicant argued the release was void because the respondent breached the settlement agreement by failing to provide the final payment on time, and that he signed under economic duress.

The Tribunal found no evidence of economic duress amounting to coercion of will.

The Tribunal held that the failure to implement a term of the settlement does not permit a party to raise the underlying substantive issues at the Tribunal.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process.

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

A summary hearing was scheduled by telephone conference, and notice was properly delivered to the applicant.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing.

After waiting 30 minutes, the Tribunal dismissed the application on the basis that it was deemed abandoned.

The applicant filed a second human rights application alleging reprisal and discrimination based on disability, stemming from settlement discussions during a preliminary hearing for her first application.

She claimed she was told a settlement could not be achieved unless it included her human rights application, which she found threatening.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it plain and obvious that the allegations were outside its jurisdiction, as positions taken during settlement negotiations do not constitute reprisal or discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

The respondents requested the dismissal of a human rights application, arguing it was barred under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code because the applicant had commenced a civil action seeking damages for the same alleged Code breaches.

The applicant subsequently amended his civil Statement of Claim to remove all references to the Code and any allegations of discrimination.

The Tribunal held that because the amended civil claim no longer contained allegations of Code infringements, the Application was not barred by section 34(11).

The respondents' request for dismissal was denied, and the parties were directed to provide submissions on whether the Application should be deferred pending the conclusion of the civil proceeding.

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

The respondent sought early dismissal on the basis that another proceeding had appropriately dealt with the matter.

The applicant failed to respond to the respondent's request and a subsequent Case Assessment Direction from the Tribunal.

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

The applicant, a probationary employee, alleged that her employer discriminated against and harassed her based on disability, and terminated her employment after she took a medical leave for a seizure.

The Tribunal found that the alleged harassment regarding seating, office transfers, and performance management had no connection to any disability.

Furthermore, the Tribunal accepted documentary evidence showing the employer had decided to terminate the applicant for performance reasons five days before she experienced her seizure and required medical leave.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a 56-year-old female Vice-Principal, alleged that the respondent School Board discriminated against her on the basis of age and sex when she was unsuccessful in a job competition for a Principal position.

The respondent requested a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's allegations primarily pointed to perceived unfairness in the interview and scoring process rather than evidence of discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant could not establish a link between the proposed evidence and the alleged prohibited grounds, and dismissed the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

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

After failing to attend a scheduled mediation session and failing to respond to multiple written directions from the Tribunal regarding her intentions to proceed, the applicant was deemed to have abandoned the application.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested an order permitting two witnesses, Dr. Ouchterlony and Dr. Warriner, to testify by teleconference, and to admit Dr. Warriner's late-filed neuropsychological assessment report.

The Tribunal denied the request for Dr. Ouchterlony to testify by teleconference, finding her evidence too important and complex for telephone testimony.

The Tribunal deferred its decision on the admissibility of Dr. Warriner's report and testimony until after hearing the applicant and Dr. Ouchterlony, to better assess its relevance.

The applicant filed a human rights application but failed to attend the scheduled hearing.

The respondent attended and had previously complied with disclosure rules.

Noting the Tribunal's duty to dispose of applications fairly, justly, and expeditiously, and the resources expended by the respondent and the Tribunal, the adjudicator dismissed the application due to the applicant's non-attendance.

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

The respondent requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant alleged that the respondent disciplined her and issued a letter of expectation regarding a workplace incident involving a misplaced cell phone, and that this was motivated by her race, age, and prior human rights and WSIB claims.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to point to any evidence connecting the respondent's actions to the prohibited grounds.

The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant filed a human rights application against the respondent.

The Tribunal directed the parties to exchange arguably relevant documents.

The respondent complied, but the applicant failed to do so.

The respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings, prompting the Tribunal to issue a Case Assessment Direction ordering the applicant to comply and warning of potential dismissal.

When the applicant failed to comply or communicate with the Tribunal, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant filed an application alleging the respondents contravened a settlement agreement by failing to implement non-monetary public interest remedies, including drafting a service animal policy and completing human rights training.

The respondents failed to file a response and were deemed to have accepted the allegations.

The Tribunal found a breach of the settlement and ordered the respondents to comply with the outstanding terms.

The Tribunal also awarded the applicant $1,000 in compensation for the distress caused by the respondents' failure to implement the remedies, which left her fearful of returning to the respondents' building.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because her main witness would be out of town caring for a sick person.

The respondent opposed the request, noting the applicant had not provided a will-say statement for the witness.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding that the request did not meet the 'extraordinary circumstances' requirement under the Practice Direction on Scheduling, particularly as the applicant had not filed a witness list and the proposed testimony did not appear relevant or essential.

The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination, alongside a claim under the Employment Standards Act (ESA).

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer the application pending the ESA claim's resolution.

The applicant opposed the deferral and provided the Tribunal with the recently released ESA decision.

The Tribunal declined to defer the application, noting that because the ESA proceeding was no longer active, there was no risk of concurrent proceedings or inconsistent decisions.

The applicant alleged that his physician discriminated against him on the basis of disability by refusing to refer him to a specialist, removing him from the patient roster, and delaying the transfer of his medical records.

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

The Tribunal found that while the applicant disagreed with the physician's medical opinion and the de-rostering process, there was no evidence linking the physician's actions to the applicant's disability.

The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.