HRTO 2015

The applicant requested a reconsideration of the Tribunal's decisions dismissing her human rights applications as abandoned.

The applications were initially dismissed after the applicant failed to respond to Notices of Intent to Dismiss.

The Tribunal denied the reconsideration request, finding that the applicant provided no reasons to explain why the decisions should be reconsidered and offered no explanation for her failure to comply with the Tribunal's directions.

The applicant filed a Form 10 Request to reactivate his human rights application, which had been deferred pending the conclusion of his union grievance process.

The Tribunal found that the union had denied the applicant's appeal and would not be proceeding with the grievance.

As the grievance was no longer proceeding, the Tribunal ordered the application reactivated and directed the respondents to file their responses.

In an interim decision, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario reviewed the applicant's intended witness list for an upcoming hearing.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's summary of the witnesses' intended evidence did not comply with Rule 17.2, as it failed to identify the particular events to which each witness would testify.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to file adequate witness statements by a specified date, failing which the applicant could be barred from leading the unparticularized evidence.

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

The personal respondent requested an extension of time until August 31, 2015 to file her Response, citing personal and family responsibilities.

The Tribunal found that such a lengthy extension was not required to ensure a fair opportunity to respond.

The Tribunal directed the personal respondent to file her Response within 35 days.

The respondent requested an order barring the applicant from adding new allegations to his human rights application through his witness statement and from seeking remedies beyond those set out in the application.

The Tribunal held that the applicant could only rely on allegations that were raised with some particularity in the Application or Reply.

Several new allegations in the witness statement were excluded.

However, the Tribunal granted the applicant's request to amend the monetary and non-monetary remedies sought, noting that the Tribunal retains discretion to determine appropriate remedies if a Code violation is found.

The applicant filed an application alleging employment discrimination based on marital and family status.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss because the narrative failed to identify specific acts of discrimination connected to a protected ground.

After the applicant's written submissions failed to address the jurisdictional issue, the Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it plain and obvious that the allegations fell outside its jurisdiction under the Human Rights Code.

The corporate respondent requested an order deferring the human rights application pending the resolution of a union grievance filed by the applicant's association.

The applicant consented to the deferral, but the personal respondent objected, arguing he was not a party to the grievance.

The Tribunal granted the deferral, finding an almost complete overlap between the facts and issues in the application and the grievance, and concluding that concurrent proceedings would create a real risk of inconsistent findings.

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

She also commenced a civil claim against the respondent for wrongful or constructive dismissal based on the same allegations of harassment, differential treatment, racism, and sexism.

The Tribunal dismissed the application under section 34(11) of the Human Rights Code, finding that the civil claim raised the same facts and issues, and that allowing the application to proceed would risk inconsistent findings and waste resources through duplicative litigation.

The applicant alleged that the respondent breached the terms of a settlement agreement regarding its parallel transit system.

The applicant claimed the respondent failed to properly implement a human telephone line, improve communication policies, and conduct required service analyses.

The Tribunal found that the respondent had complied with the settlement terms, including providing a live person for bookings, reviewing communication policies, and tabling reports on accessibility compliance.

The application was dismissed.

The complainant alleged discrimination because of disability regarding the special diet allowance provided under Ontario's social assistance system.

Following the complainant's death, the Tribunal directed the next of kin to confirm who was authorized to act on behalf of the estate and the estate's intentions regarding the complaint.

When no response was received by the extended deadline, the Tribunal dismissed the complaint as abandoned.

The applicant filed an application under section 34 of the Human Rights Code, which was deferred pending the conclusion of another legal proceeding.

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

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

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer because the allegations regarding hiring practices were also the subject of an ongoing union grievance.

The applicant opposed deferral, arguing the application included broader allegations of harassment and a poisoned work environment not covered by the grievance.

The Tribunal found that the grievance process could also review those broader issues and that proceeding concurrently posed a real risk of inconsistent findings.

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

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of age and family status against a real estate agent who informed him that a trailer park would not approve his purchase because he was under 50 and planned to have children.

The applicant had previously settled with the trailer park.

The Tribunal dismissed the application against the real estate agent, finding that she did not create or apply the discriminatory rules, but merely informed the applicant of them, and did not refuse to show him the unit.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming a failure to accommodate and resulting loss of earnings.

The parties consented to defer the application pending the outcome of a concurrent Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) proceeding dealing with the same loss of earnings issue.

The Tribunal deferred the application to avoid concurrent proceedings and the risk of inconsistent decisions, noting the applicant could request reactivation within 60 days of the WSIB Appeals Resolution Officer's decision.

The applicant filed multiple human rights applications alleging reprisal by various respondents, including police services and court officials.

The Tribunal issued Notices of Intent to Dismiss (NOID) as the applications appeared out of time and lacked facts connecting the alleged conduct to a Code-protected ground or prior Code claim.

Finding no good faith explanation for the delay and no plain and obvious connection to the Code, the Tribunal dismissed the applications for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant sought to reactivate his human rights application alleging reprisal and discrimination based on association with a transgender co-worker, following the conclusion of a grievance arbitration.

The Tribunal dismissed the request to reactivate because it was filed past the 60-day deadline.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that even if reactivated, the application would be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, as the grievance arbitration had already appropriately dealt with the substance of the allegations by finding no prima facie case of discrimination.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that dismissed his human rights application for being filed outside the limitation period.

The applicant argued the decision conflicted with established case law.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding the applicant was merely attempting to re-argue his case and failed to establish any of the threshold criteria under Rule 26 for reconsideration.

The applicant filed an application alleging discrimination with respect to goods and services because of creed, disability, and race.

After the applicant's representative advised they were no longer retained, the applicant failed to comply with Tribunal directions to file witness lists and documents, and ceased communicating with the Tribunal.

The Tribunal cancelled the hearing dates and directed the applicant to explain the non-compliance.

When the applicant failed to respond, the respondent requested dismissal.

The Tribunal deemed the application abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant requested to re-activate her human rights application alleging discrimination with respect to services because of disability, while the respondent requested to defer it.

The Tribunal found that a proceeding relating to the same allegations was ongoing before the Social Benefits Tribunal.

To avoid concurrent proceedings and the possibility of inconsistent decisions, the Tribunal deferred the application pending the completion of the Social Benefits Tribunal proceeding.

The respondent requested early dismissal of an age discrimination application under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the issues were resolved in a group grievance settlement between the respondent and the affected party union.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant received no benefit from the settlement and did not expressly adopt it.

The respondent was directed to file its response.