HRTO 2015

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.

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

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

The applicant, a taxicab driver, alleged discrimination on the basis of age and reprisal against the respondents.

He claimed he was charged a higher daily rate for his taxicab than other drivers and faced discipline when questioning authority.

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

The Tribunal found no evidence linking the differential fee to the applicant's age, noting the fee change was related to shift changeover times.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to show he had claimed or attempted to enforce a right under the Code prior to the alleged reprisal.

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

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that partially upheld his applications for contravention of settlement.

He argued the decision was biased, failed to acknowledge his Aboriginal Métis identity, improperly denied him the right to record the hearing, and denied him the opportunity to cross-examine the respondent.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant was merely rearguing his case and disagreeing with the decision, and that none of his arguments met the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.

The respondents requested that the applicant's human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability be deferred pending the conclusion of her related claim before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB).

The Tribunal declined to defer the application, finding that there was a potential for significant delay in the WSIB proceedings and it was unclear whether those proceedings would address the substance of the human rights allegations, including the reasons for the termination of the applicant's employment.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in the delivery of a service based on disability, family status, and marital status.

The respondents requested that the application be deferred pending the completion of concurrent proceedings before the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) and professional colleges.

The Tribunal found significant overlap between the facts and issues in the application and the FSCO arbitration, raising a real risk of inconsistent findings.

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

The applicant filed two human rights applications alleging discrimination in employment based on disability, claiming the respondents failed to accommodate his medical restrictions and refused to allow him to return to work.

The respondents sought to defer the applications pending a concurrent grievance arbitration process.

The Tribunal consolidated the two applications due to their similar facts and issues, and deferred them pending the resolution of the grievance arbitration, noting that grievance arbitrators have the authority and responsibility to enforce human rights obligations.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on multiple grounds and reprisal following the termination of his employment.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the claims had a reasonable prospect of success and whether the reprisal claim was appropriately dealt with by a prior Employment Standards Act proceeding.

The Tribunal dismissed the claims based on race, colour, place of origin, ethnic origin, disability, and age for having no reasonable prospect of success.

However, the Tribunal allowed the creed-based discrimination and reprisal claims to proceed, finding they required an evidentiary record and that the ESA proceeding did not address the substance of the Code reprisal claim.

The applicant in a human rights proceeding alleging discrimination on the basis of disability sought the production of documents and particulars in advance of the hearing.

The requested documents related to a temporary contract worker, the applicant's transfers between departments, and employee terminations during an alleged corporate downsizing.

The Tribunal found the requested documents and particulars to be arguably relevant to the issues in the proceeding and ordered their production, subject to redactions for private employee information and the implied undertaking rule regarding confidentiality.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination on various grounds under the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) because the application failed to identify any acts that might amount to discrimination.

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

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on multiple grounds, claiming the respondents stalked, raped, and threatened her, and committed genocide against her family in Bosnia.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss Application.

The Tribunal found it plain and obvious that the allegations fell outside its jurisdiction, as it does not have jurisdiction over criminal offences or international human rights violations occurring outside Ontario.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a request to reactivate a human rights application that had been deferred pending the completion of a related labour arbitration.

The respondents opposed the reactivation and requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance was dealt with at arbitration.

The Tribunal found the arbitration was concluded and ordered the application reactivated, directing the respondents to file their responses and any reply regarding the dismissal request.

The applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination and reprisal contrary to the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss the Application because it appeared to be outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to respond to the Notice.

The Application was dismissed as abandoned.

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

The respondents requested the application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the substance of the application was already dealt with by an employment standards officer who dismissed the applicant's reprisal claim.

The Tribunal noted the applicant had sought a review of the employment standards officer's decision at the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Tribunal held it was premature to consider dismissing the application under s. 45.1 while the other proceeding was still ongoing, and ordered the application deferred pending the conclusion of the employment standards proceeding.

The applicants filed Contravention of Settlement Applications alleging the respondents breached Minutes of Settlement by failing to make required instalment payments.

The respondents admitted the breach but cited financial difficulties.

The Tribunal found that financial difficulties do not excuse compliance with a binding settlement agreement.

The Tribunal ordered the respondents to pay the outstanding principal amount of $8,000 with pre-judgment interest, plus $1,500 to each applicant as compensation for the emotional impact of the breach.

The applicant requested to reactivate her human rights application, which had been deferred pending the completion of an Ontario Labour Relations Board proceeding.

The Tribunal found that the OLRB proceeding had concluded and ordered the application reactivated, directing the respondent to file its response within 35 days.

The applicant filed a Contravention of Settlement Application alleging the respondents failed to pay $11,000 as agreed in their Minutes of Settlement.

The respondents admitted to not making the payments, citing financial difficulties.

The Tribunal found the respondents breached the binding agreement and ordered them to pay the outstanding $11,000 plus pre-judgment interest.

Additionally, the Tribunal awarded the applicant $1,500 as compensation for the emotional impact of the respondents' failure to comply with the settlement.

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.

After the applicant failed to respond to a subsequent direction from the Tribunal regarding her intentions, the Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to services on the grounds of disability, creed, sex, marital status, and race.

Valoris for Children and Adults of Prescott-Russell filed a Request to Intervene to address issues regarding the interpretation of the Child and Family Services Act and to provide relevant documentary evidence.

The Tribunal granted the request to intervene, finding that Valoris had a significant interest in the proceeding as the applicant had interactions with the organization and the application made allegations against it.

The Tribunal held an initial hearing into the merits of the application but subsequently cancelled the continuation dates.

The Tribunal directed the parties to provide available dates for rescheduling.

The applicant failed to respond to the initial email and a subsequent formal rescheduling request, which warned that failure to respond could result in the application being considered abandoned.

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

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination and harassment by a member of her condominium's board of directors.

The respondent requested that the application be deferred because the applicant had also commenced a civil claim in Small Claims Court against the condominium corporation and its board president, alleging defamation and harassment.

The Tribunal found that the claims in both proceedings were substantially similar and arose from the same factual background.

To avoid adjudicative duplication and inconsistent results, the Tribunal ordered the deferral of the human rights application pending the conclusion of the civil proceeding.